Complaint filed on: 25-09-2010
Disposed on: 29-12-2010
BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052
C.C.No.2204/2010
DATED THIS THE 29th DECEMBER 2010
PRESENT
SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT
SRIGANGANARASAIH, MEMBER
SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER
Complainant: -
Smt.S.Rajeswari, aged 68 years,
W/o. late A.Sunder Raman,
79-Ground Floor,
Muddappa Road Cross,
M.S.Nagar P.O.
Bangalore-560 033
V/s
Opposite party: -
The Secretary,
The Vyalikaval House Building
Co-Op. Society Ltd,
100-6th Main, 11th Cross,
Malleswaram,
Bangalore-03
O R D E R
SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT.,
The grievance of the complainant against the OP in brief is that her husband Late A. Sundara Raman was a member of housing OP Co-operative society with an intention of availing a site, paid Rs.22,000/- once and Rs.7,000/- at later stage and in all paid Rs.29,000/- towards allotment of a site to the OP society. Thereafter the OP went on promising to provide a site but did not allot. But after lapse of some time the OP issued a provisional allotment letter on 24/3/1987 allotting a site measuring a 1200 SQ feet at Chanakyapuri layout, but thereafter failed to make a final allotment by allotting a site in their favour. It is further stated by the complainant, after the death of her husband she repeatedly contacted and even approached the OP to allot a site in her favour in terms of the provisional letter of allotment but stated the OP did not do so. However the OP sent a letter on 19/11/2010 informing that land acquired for the purpose of forming layout has been taken over by the Government leaving a small portion out of which they were able to form only 400 sites and they have allotted them to some of the members and further stated that the Government has agreed to provide some more land and if they are able to get the land, they will consider allotting a site in her favour and thereby have prayed for a direction to OP to allot her a site.
2. OP has appeared through his Advocate and filed version interalia contending that the complaint is not maintainable and has gone on narrating the acquisition of land for the purpose of formation of layout then initiation of proceeding by some of the land lords questioning the acquisition, setting aside the acquisition proceedings and has also referred to decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which after quashing the acquisition proceeding direct them to deliver back the possession of the acquired land to the respective landlords with a further direction to the landlord’s to pay back the money they had received. OP has further contended that because of this legal proceeding they were not able to form layout; their money is held up in the Government, and the Government ought to have been made as a party in the complaint. The Op has denied his liability to pay interest to the complainant on the deposit made, on the ground that OP is a non-profit making institution involved in the allotment of sites to its members on no profit basis and therefore exhibited his inability to pay interest and further stated as if the complainant is not interested in taking site, and denying any deficiency in their service has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In the course of enquiry in to the complaint, the complainant and the OP have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in the respective complaint and version. The complainant along with the complaint has produced a copy of provisional allotment letter issued by the OP, copy of the receipts for having paid sital advance amount, copies of certain correspondence, copy of death certificate of her husband with a copy of legal notice she got issued to the OP. OP has not produced any documents. Counsel for both parties have filed their written arguments reasserting what they have stated in their affidavit evidence.
4. On consideration of the above materials following points for determination arise;
1. Whether the complainant proves that the OP has caused deficiency in his service in either not providing her a site or in not refunding the advance money paid by her husband?
2. To what reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?
5. Our findings are as under:
1. Point NO 1: In the Affirmative
2. Point No 2: To see the final order;
REASONS
6. Answer on point no.1: As manifest from the contentions of the parties narrated above in brief , we find no dispute among them about the husband of the complainant becoming a member of OP-society, payment of advance amount of Rs.29,000/- seeking allotment of a site and issue of provisional allotment letter dated: 24/3/1987. The OP has also not denied the death of the complainant’s husband and the right of the complainant in presenting this complaint. The OP even by sending a letter on 19/11/2010 has informed the complainant that out of 278 acres they had acquired Government had taken above 180 acres and with the remaining land they were able to form 400 sites and even at that stage has made an offer to the complainant informing her that they are moving the Government for providing some more land for formation of layout and if they are able to get the land from the Government they would consider the claim of the complainant for allotment of a site. Therefore the right of the complainant seeking allotment of a site and advance payment made is not denied by the OP.
7. In the course of arguments the learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that the OP is telling that they do not have any sites in any of their layout at present for allotting a site to the complainant and it was not sure whether the Government would provide any land or not and the offer of the OP is uncertain and the complainant being an aged widow cannot wait for an uncertain period and submitted for considering a direction to the OP to refund her money with appropriate compensation. The counsel representing OP also on the point of getting land from the Government for formation of layout was not certain and was not in a poison to make a definite submission to the Forum as to when they would be able to get the land to allot a site to the complainant and other members. Thus considering this fact and also the uncertainty of getting a site besides considering the age of the complainant we would find it just to direct the OP to refund her advance money with interest. It is found from the provisional allotment letter issued in the year 1987 even at that stage the complainant’s husband was found eligible for allotment of a site and accordingly he was allotted a site, but the OP. It is gathered by ignoring the provisional allotment made, appears to have provided plots to some other member by not considering the complainants claim. If the husband of the complainant or the complainant was allotted a site in terms of the provisional allotment, they would have had an advantage of having a site and appreciation of its value for all these years, but the OP denied the allotment, retained the complainants money for its benefit and therefore considering from this angle, we find it just and equitable to award damages in the form of compensation in addition to refund of the advance money. With the result, we answer point No1 in the affirmative, pass the following;
ORDER
Complaint is allowed. OP is directed to refund Rs.29,000/- to the complainant with interest at 16% p.a. from the date of respective deposits till the date of repayment. The OP shall refund that amount with interest within 60 days from the date of this order.
OP shall also pay compensation of Rs.1 Lakh to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this Order failing which, he shall pay interest on that amount at 12% p.a. from the date of this order till date of payment.
OP shall also pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Got it transcribed and corrected, Pronounced on the Open Forum on this 29th December 2010.
Member Member President
