COMPLAINT FILED: 25.08.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 11th NOVEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 1866/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Udiavar Mohan Bhaskar Rao,<br /> S/o. Bhaskar Rao Udiavar,<br /> Aged about 59 years,<br /> Assistant General Manager (ISC)<br /> M.I.S Department,<br /> State Bank of Hyderabad,<br /> Ist Floor HYBANK Towers,<br /> Head Office, Gunfoundry,<br /> Hyderabad – 500 001.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (S. Shivanand)<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The State Bank of Mysore Employees’ Housing<br /> Co-operative Society Limited,<br /> A Cooperative Society registered under the provision of Karnataka Cooperative Societies <br /> Registration Act,<br /> Having its Office at State Bank of Mysore Buildings, Avenue Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 009.<br /> Represented by its <br /> Hon. Secretary.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (V.S. Naik)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to allot a site measuring 30 X 40 feet in Soladevanahalli, Chikabanavara Project or in the alternative pay a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant with a fond hope of acquiring the site in the layout proposed to be formed by the OP, who claims to be a house building co-operative society became a member of the OP society and opted to purchase a site measuring 30 X 40 feet in their project at Soladevanahalli, Chikabanavara. In that regard complainant went on paying the instalments in all to the tune of Rs.45,000/- right from the year 1999. OP issued him a provisional allotment letter with respect to a site, but thereafter somehow failed to complete the said project and register a site in his favour. When complainant visited the alleged layout, there were no developmental activities at all. Complainant thought that he is duped. He made repeated correspondence and request to OP to allot him a site, it went in futile. OP with ulterior motive sold all those sites and plots at a higher price defeating the interest and rights of its members. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. He even caused the legal notice on 13.09.2007. Again there was no response. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP they did acquire 40 acres of land for the formation of the said layout, wherein they proposed to develop 600 sites, but unfortunately they were able to develop only 23.20 acres and formed only 315 sites due to various legal hurdles. OP through a circular intimated the members to pay the entire sital value and on first come first basis they will allot a site. Complainant failed to make payment of the remaining instalments, he has become a defaulter, hence he was not allotted with a site. Now as on this day no such vacant sites are available at the disposal of the OP. Complainant took his own sweat time of 9 years in redressing his so called grievance. Though he made his last payment in the year 1999 up to 2007 he did not raise his voice. The complaint is barred by time. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations are false. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant became the member of OP house building co-operative society so as to purchase a site of his own. He opted to purchase a site in the project floated and developed by the OP at Soladevanahalli, Chikabanavara. He has shown his interest and inclination to purchase a site measuring 30 X 40 feet. OP having accepted his membership issued the provisional allotment letter. Complainant went on paying the sital value in all he paid Rs.45,000/-, towards the cost of the said site. Receipts and documents to that effect are produced. Though he paid the sital value in the year 1999 up to 2004 there were no developmental activities at all, that is the reason why he did not make payment of the remaining instalments. Then immediately contacted the OP to receive the remaining amount and allot him a site in the year 2007. Again there was no response. Thus he felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP.<br /> <br /> 7. As against this it is contended by the OP that there were some legal hurdles in developing 600 sites as promised earlier. They are able to complete the said project with 315 sites. As they have incurred lot of expenditure in formation of the said layout, that is why they requested all the members those who are interested to purchase the site and got the provisional allotment in their favour to pay the entire sital value immediately. The circular issued to that effect are produced. Now it is contended by the OP that though complainant is aware of the said circulars which were sent in the year 1999 he kept quiet up to 2004, then for the first time he approached OP in the year 2007. Hence the complaint is barred by time. As the complainant has become the defaulter in not paying the sital value in time the eligible members who have paid the entire sital value were allotted with the said sites. Now there are no vacant sites available at the disposal of the OP in the said layout so as to allot one to the complainant. They denied the allegations of deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 8. When once OP admits the membership of the complainant and the receipt of the sital value it is incumbent upon the OP to perform its part of contract. Before cancellation of the membership or forfeiture of the sital value paid in part, natural justice requires that OP should cause a notice in writing to the complainant about the action they are going to take. But here in this case no such documents are produced by the OP to substantiate their defence that complainant has become the defaulter in not making payment in time. Whether the said circulars have reached the complainant is not known. Those circulars are not got printed in the newspapers so as to take notice of the same by public at large. All those circulars issued by the OP were printed in their office letter head. Under such circumstances we do not find any force in the contention of the OP that the complainant is aware of the said circulars, but still failed to make payment of the sital value in time, as such complaint is barred by time.<br /> <br /> 9. If the OP is of the view that complainant has violated the terms and conditions or caused any breach of contract or that there is a default on his part, some written action would have been initiated against him. Again OP has not taken any such steps, it just kept quiet after the receipt of Rs.45,000/- about 7 years back without allotting the site and registering the sites. OP accrued the wrongful gain to itself, thereby caused the wrongful loss to the complainant. The hostile attitude of the OP must have naturally caused both mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. We are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP.<br /> <br /> 10. The complainant has not produced such other documents to show that even till today they are certain vacant sites free from all encumbrances available at the disposal of the OP with respect to the said project and layout so as to allot one to him. So in absence of production of such documents and proof of availability of the said sites, in our view no such direction can be issued to the OP. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, the justice will be met by directing the OP to refund the sital value with interest and pay some compensation on the basis of guidance value of the sites in and around Bangalore with litigation cost. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.45,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from April 1999 till realization and also pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- as a guidance value and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 11th day of November 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br />