IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.D.Krishnappa<br /> B.A., L.L.B - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> CC 98 to 100/09 DATED 29.05.2009<br /> <br /> COMMON ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant in CC 98/09 S.H.Vishwanatha Rao,<br /> S/o Hanumantha Rao, S.V., R/at D.No.375/2, Chaluvamba Agrahara, K.R.Mohalla, Mysore.<br /> Complainant in CC 99/09 Smt.R.Jayalakshmi, W/o K.Mohan Kumar R/at D.No.4, South of Kumbarakoppal, 1st Main Road, 3rd Stage, Gokulam, Mysore.<br /> Complainant in CC 100/09 K.T.Hemanna, S/o Thamme Gowda, No.789, Rathnagiri, Opp. To Bhupanna Choultry, Manchegowdana Koppal, Mysore.<br /> (By Sri.M.D.Kumar, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party in all three cases are same The President, V.V.Mohalla House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., Adipampa Road, V.V.Mohalla, Mysore. <br /> (By Sri.S.Kumaraswamy, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaints : 12.03.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 15.04.2009<br /> Date of order : 29.05.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTH 13 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The grievance of these complainants against the opposite party who is common in all these complaints respectively is, that the opposite party is a House Building Co-operative Society, they are the members of it, having shares in it, applied for allotment of a site measuring 30’ x 40’ each at Hebbal Layout, Mysore and paid Rs.35,000/- each to the opposite party towards the value of the site. That the opposite party in the first case had even issued allotment letter allotting a site bearing No.138/B and assured to allot sites to the other two complainants, but so far he has not allotted sites, but allotted site in favour of other junior members. The opposite party who has collected huge amounts from the members has failed to allot sites. Despite several approaches and representations and therefore have prayed for a direction to the opposite party for allotment of a site measuring 30’ x 40’ each in their favour at the rate prevailing in the year 1991 and to pay interest at 20% p.a. from the date of that deposits, award compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and cost.<br /> <br /> 2. The opposite party has appeared through his advocate and filed common version in all these three complaints, admitting receipt of Rs.35,000/- each from each of these complainants towards allotment of a site each measuring 30’ x 40’, but stated that the value of the sites was fixed at Rs.45,000/- for each site + betterment charges Rs.10,000/-, but denied to had given any assurance of allotment of sites and denied to have allotted site in favour of the first complainant and stated it is a fabricated one. Denying all other allegations, he has contended that they have got 1 acre 12 guntas land, on which a civil suit is pending and also RRT proceeding before the competent revenue officer and until those disputes are settled, he is not in a position to allot site and stated, if the complainants can wait till disputes are resolved, he would allot sites to them and further added that the Mysore Urban Development Authority has demand notice for Rs.33,27,041/- towards water prorate charges, and to provide other facilities, but as it is suffering from financial crises is unable to pay the same and thereby prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaints, the complainants and opposite party have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaints and version. The complainants have produced copies of receipts issued by the opposite party on receipt of the sital value and copies of certain letters addressed to the opposite party. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complainants prove that the opposite party has caused deficiency in his service in not allotting sites to them?<br /> 2. To what relief the complainants are entitled to?<br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Point no. 1:- As evident from the admission of the opposite party in his version and also in the affidavit evidence, there is no dispute with regard to these complainants being the members of opposite party and having had paid Rs.35,000/- each to opposite party towards allotment of a site each to them measuring 30’ x 40’ at Hebbal Layout, Mysore. The opposite party has also not denied his liability for allotment of a site and the right of the complainants in demanding for allotment of a site each to them subject to the fact of payment of the entire sital value by the complainants to the opposite party.<br /> 7. The opposite party has categorically stated in his pleadings that they have 1 acre 12 gunts land for formation of sites, but that is held up in a civil suit and also in RRT proceeding and under taken to allot sites to these complainants on the final disposal of those proceeding and further added that the society is due heavily to Mysore Urban Development Authority, but it is facing financial crises, which indicates that society is not in a position to discharge its liability towards the local body, therefore it gives a clue that the opposite party within a reasonable time may not be in a position to allot sites in favour of the complainants. The counsel for the complainants in the course of arguments having regard to this situation, submitted that the opposite party within the reasonable time may not be in a position to allot a site, therefore submitted for a direction to the opposite party to refund the monies of the complainants with interest and other damages and even the opposite party has stated that the complainants are at liberty to take back their deposits. Under these circumstances, we find it just and reasonable to direct the opposite party to refund the deposits of the complainants with interest by observing that the opposite party after receipt of monies have invested the same on the lands, which were available at cheaper rate and the cost of which has now gone up in manifold and therefore they have the advantage of gaining more profit. As such, we pass the following order:- <br /> COMMON ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaints are allowed.<br /> 2. The opposite party is directed to refund the deposits made by the complainants within 90 days from today (29.05.2009) with interest at 18% p.a. on each deposits from the date of their respective deposits till the payment.<br /> 3. The opposite party shall also pay cost of Rs.1,000/- each to each of these complainants.<br /> 4. Keep a original copy of this order in CC 98-09 and Xerox copy of this order in CC 99-09 and 100-09.<br /> 5. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 29th May 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (D.Krishnappa) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />