Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. These are the complaints presented by the complainants through their power of attorney holders, under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the same common Opposite parties for the relief of allotment of sites as prayed in their respective complaint.<br /> 2. The grievance of the 1st complainant is, that she is a member of the 1st Opposite party society applied for allotment of a site measuring 30’ x 40’ and paid entire sital value of Rs.45,000/- and against which 1st Opposite party allotted her a site No.176 of Nadanahalli Layout, Mysore under allotment letter dated 28.05.2005. Even though, she had paid total value of that site, the 1st Opposite party demanded an enhanced amount of Rs.10,000/-, even the said amount has been paid by her on 10.09.2004. Thereafter, the 1st Opposite party failed to deliver possession of the said site and execute title deed. Though she had approached the 1st Opposite party several times, he did not deliver possession and execute sale deed. Therefore, contending that the cause of action has arisen when she paid money for allotment of site has prayed for a direction to direct the Opposite parties to execute registered sale deed in respect of site No.176, to deliver possession and to grant such other relief.<br /> 3. The grievance of the 2nd complainant is that she is a member of the 1st Opposite party society applied for allotment of a site measuring 30’ x 40’ and paid entire sital value of Rs.45,000/- and against which 1st Opposite party allotted her a site No.177 of Nadanahalli Layout, Mysore under allotment letter dated 28.05.2005. Even though, she had paid total value of that site, the 1st Opposite party demanded and enhanced amount of Rs.10,000/-, even the said amount has been paid by her on 10.09.2004. Thereafter, the 1st Opposite party failed to deliver possession of the said site and execute title deed. Though she had approached the 1st Opposite party in several times, he did not deliver possession and execute the sale deed. Therefore, contending that the cause of action has arisen when she paid money for allotment of site has prayed for a direction to direct the Opposite parties to execute registered sale deed of site No.177, to deliver possession and to grant such other relief.<br /> 4. The grievance of the 3rd complainant is that she is a member of the 1st Opposite party society applied for allotment of a site measuring 30’ x 40’ and paid entire sital value of Rs.45,000/- and against which 1st Opposite party allotted her a site No.158 of Nadanahalli Layout, Mysore under allotment letter dated 07.04.2004. Even though, she had paid total value of that site, the 1st Opposite party demanded an enhanced amount of Rs.10,000/-, even the said amount has been paid by her on 26.03.2005. Thereafter, the 1st Opposite party failed to deliver possession of the said site and execute title deed. Though she had approached the 1st Opposite party several times, he did not deliver possession and execute sale deed. Therefore, contending that the cause of action has arisen when she paid money for allotment of site has prayed for a direction to direct the Opposite parties to execute registered sale deed of site No.158, to deliver possession and to grant such other relief.<br /> 5. The grievance of the 4th complainant is that she is a member of the 1st Opposite party society applied for allotment of a site measuring 35’ x 55’ and paid entire sital value of Rs.88,500/- and against which 1st Opposite party allotted her a site No.248 of Nadanahalli Layout, Mysore under allotment letter dated 03.06.2004. Even though, she had paid total value of that site, the 1st Opposite party demanded an enhanced amount of Rs.21,500/- over and above the fixed value of the site even though he paid that amount also on 12.07.2004, the Opposite party has not allotted the site. Thereafter, the 1st Opposite party failed to deliver possession of the said site and execute title deed. Though she had approached the 1st Opposite party several times, he did not deliver possession and execute sale deed. Therefore, contending that the cause of action has arisen when she paid money for allotment of site has prayed for a direction to direct the Opposite parties to register sale deed of site No.248, to deliver possession and to grant such other relief.<br /> 6. The grievance of the 5th complainant is that she is a member of the 1st Opposite party society applied for allotment of a site measuring 30’ x 40’ and paid entire sital value of Rs.55,000/- and against which 1st Opposite party allotted her a site No.157 of Nadanahalli Layout, Mysore under allotment letter dated 07.04.2004. Even though, she had paid the total value of that site, the 1st Opposite party demanded an enhanced amount of Rs.10,000/-, even the said amount has been paid by her on 18.06.2003. Thereafter, the 1st Opposite party failed to deliver possession of the said site and execute title deed. Though she had approached the 1st Opposite party several times, he did not deliver possession and executed sale deed. Therefore, contending that the cause of action has arisen when she paid money for allotment of site has prayed for a direction to direct the Opposite parties to register sale deed of site No.157, to deliver possession and to grant such other relief.<br /> 7. The complainants though made the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies as 2nd and 3rd Opposite parties, later have got them deleted and thereby have confined their complaints against 1st Opposite party only.<br /> 8. The Opposite party has filed versions in these complaints, admitting that these complainants had applied for allotment of sites and payment of the amounts as stated by them in their respective complaints. But, the Opposite party has specifically denied the other allegations regarding allotment of sites and issue of allotment letters and contended that the alleged allotment letters produced and relied upon by the complainants are all fabricated for the purpose of these cases and thereby has denied the allotment and issue of allotment letters. The Opposite party has also denied that the amounts paid by these complainants was the total value of the sites, for which they applied, by further denying they demanded, enhanced and collected Rs.10,000/- in excess from the above complainants and Rs.21,500/- from the complainant in CC 349/07. The Opposite party has also denied these complainants approaching them many times for executing title deeds and for delivery of possession has stated that, it after forming layout is allotting sites according to the seniority of the members and allotted the above mentioned sites to the senior members of the society in accordance with law. Further, contending that the previous Board of the Opposite party society has committed misconduct in administering the functions of the society, which later on came to be superceded leading to appointment of an administrator. The present Board has initiated action for proper and smooth functioning of the society, and thus has prayed for dismissal of the complaints.<br /> 9. In the course of enquiry into these complaints, the power of attorney holders of these complainants have filed affidavit evidence reproducing what has been stated in their complaints. The President of the Opposite party society has filed his affidavit evidence in all these cases reiterating the contentions he has raised in the versions. The complainants have produced copy of the allotment letter, copy of power of attorney and few receipts for having paid certain amounts to Opposite party. Heard the counsel for the complainants, for the Opposite party and perused the records.<br /> 10. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complainants prove that the Opposite party after allotting site No.176, 177, 158, 248 and 157 of Nadanahalli Layout, Mysore to them respectively by through the allotment letters dated 28.05.2005 in the first and second complaints, on 07.04.2004 in the 3rd complaint, on 03.06.2004 in the 4th complaint and on 07.04.2004 in the 5th complaint, thereafter has failed to execute sale deed and deliver possession has caused deficiency in its service?<br /> 2. Whether the complainants are entitled for the relief as sought for?<br /> 3. What order?<br /> 11. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the Negative.<br /> Point no.2 : In the Negative.<br /> Point no.3 : See the final order.<br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 12. As all these complaints are filed against the common Opposite party Housing Co-operative Society with similar set of allegations and facts, therefore after hearing the counsel for both the parties are taken together for disposal by a common order.<br /> 13. Points no. 1 and 2:- The Opposite party society in its version and also in the affidavit evidence admitted that these complainants are its members and have paid certain amounts to society for allotment of sites, but denied the alleged demanded an enhanced sital value and receipt of that enhanced value. The Opposite party has further denied having allotted any sites to these complainants and categorically in the version and also in the affidavit evidence contended that the allotment letters relied upon by these complainants are fabricated for the purpose of these cases. The Opposite party as could be seen even by referring to the serial number of the allotment letters and also the dates, has denied to have issued those allotment letters. This being the specific and categorical stand of the Opposite party, burden casts on the complainants to prove that the Opposite party society in pursuance of certain payments made by them, allotted sites in their favour and issued the respective allotment letters in their favour. But, the complainants except filing affidavit by referring to those alleged allotment letters have not taken any step to prove that those allotment letters are genuine allotment letters issued by the Opposite party society after allotting the respective sites to them in accordance with the decision if any taken by the Board of the society. This point was raised by this Forum and put to the counsel for the complainants and questioned whether the complainants have proved the genuineness of these allotment letters, despite that the complainants as stated by us above have not made efforts to prove the allotments and also issue of these letters. If according to the complainants, the Opposite party had allotted sites to them as stated by them, they could have summoned the relevant resolution if any, or any decision of the Board or the concerned documents including the register of allotments to prove the allotments made in their favour and they could have also summoned and examined the official or office bearer whose signature is found in these allotment letters to prove that he had issued these allotment letters in accordance with the decision of the Board or he was competent to issue such allotment letters. No attempt has been made to prove that these allotments claimed by the complainants are genuine and allotment letters relied upon by them are also genuine. Therefore, in the absence of legal evidence and proof to prove that the Opposite party had allotted sites to them and then he issued allotment letters, the claim of the complainants cannot be acceeded.<br /> 14. It can be seen in CC 348/07, the alleged allotment letter was issued with condition that complainant shall pay the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- within 30 days from the date of this allotment letter. This allotment letter is dated 07.04.2004, wherein the complainant was required to pay the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- within 07.05.2004. But, the complainant shown to had paid that amount of Rs.10,000/- on 26.03.2005 after expiry of 30 days fixed under the letter. Similarly, in CC 349/07 under the alleged allotment letter, the complainant was required to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,05,000/- within 30 days from the date of issue of that letter. This letter is shown to have been issued on 03.04.2004. Whereas this complainant shown to had paid Rs.45,000/ on 09.09.2004 which is paid according to him after expiry of 30 days from the date of allotment letter. Therefore if the balance amounts are not paid within the period stipulated under alleged allotment letters, the further condition reads that the complainant or the allotee refused the allotment. Therefore, these 2 complainants who very much rely upon the allotment letters admittedly have not paid the balance amount in time, therefore the exclusion clause comes in and leads to a presumption that the complainants refused the allotment. Therefore, the complainants under these circumstances cannot complain any deficiency against the Opposite party and seek relief as prayed for. As reasoned by us above, the complainants have failed to prove the genuineness of the allotments relied upon by them. Further, the contention of the Opposite party as also sworn to in the affidavit that it is allotting sites to the senior members taking into consideration the total sital value paid, in accordance with law and that they have not issued any allotment letters has remained unrebutted. Therefore, we hold that the complainants have failed to prove this case and the deficiency. Hence, we answer both the points against them, and reach to the conclusion the complaints are liable to be dismissed and proceed to pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaints are dismissed.<br /> 2. Parties to bear their own costs.<br /> 3. Keep a original copy in CC 346/07 and Xerox copy in all 4 cases.<br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br />