B.L.Srinivasa Prasad filed a consumer case on 14 Sep 2007 against Vani Vilasa Mohalla House Building Co-Operative Society in the Mysore Consumer Court. The case no is CC/07/152 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
Karnataka
Mysore
CC/07/152
B.L.Srinivasa Prasad - Complainant(s)
Versus
Vani Vilasa Mohalla House Building Co-Operative Society - Opp.Party(s)
Sri.Sridhar Chakke
14 Sep 2007
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MYSORE No.845, 10th Main, New Kantharaj Urs Road, G.C.S.T. Layout, Kuvempunagar, Mysore - 570 009 consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/152
B.L.Srinivasa Prasad
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Vani Vilasa Mohalla House Building Co-Operative Society
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
Sri.D.Krishnappa, President COMMON ORDER IN CC 152 and 153/07 1. The Complainants have come up with this Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the common Opposite parties with common grievances, as such both the Complainants are taken together for disposal by a common order. 2. The grievance of the Complainants are that they had become members of the Opposite party Housing Co-operative Society paid Rs.45,000/- each for allotment of sites measuring 30 x 40 each and accordingly they were allotted sites bearing No.127 & 128 respectively. The Opposite parties who issued the allotment letters to them made communication to that effect, thereafter did not show any interest in further action of registering those sites in their favour, despite several approaches made to them and therefore complaining deficiency of service against them have prayed for a direction to the Opposite parties to make final allotments and that sites to pay damages of Rs.5,000/- each and litigation expenditure. 3. The Opposite parties have filed their version without disputing that the Complainants are the members of their society, but contended that they did not pay the sital value on their directions, but the Complainant themselves deposited the amounts, and have further admitted to had made allotment of sites measuring 30 x 40 in favour of the Complainants. The Opposite parties have further denied that they have allotted the sites to other members who are juniors to them and by further denying other allegations have contended that site No.127 & 128 of Nadanahalli Layout are not available as they have already been allotted to next senior members and thus have prayed for dismissal of the Complaint. 4. During the course of enquiry, the Complainants and the Administrator of the Opposite parties Society have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective Complaints and versions. The Complainants have produced the allotment letters and the receipts for having paid the sital value. 5. Heard the counsel for both the parties on perusal of the materials on record following points for determination arise 1. Whether the Complainants prove that despite payment of the sital value in time the Opposite parties have failed to finally allot them sites and to do other follow up acts and thereby caused deficiency in their service? 2. Whether the Complainants are entitled for the relief sought for? 3. What order? 6. Our findings are as under:- Point no.1 : In the affirmative. Point no.2 : In the affirmative. Point no.3 : See the final order. REASONS 7. Points no. 1 & 2:- The claim of the Complainants that they were the members of the Opposite party House Building Co-operative Society they were allotted sites measuring 30' x 40 each bearing No.127 & 128 in Nadanahalli Layout is not disputed by the Opposite parties, on the other hand they have admitted it, though contended that the Complainants themselves requested them and deposited Rs.45,000/. The Complainants have produced the allotment letters dated 05.09.1998 under which site No.127 & 128 were allotted to these Complaints respectively showing the amount of Rs.15,000/- each paid by them already and calling upon them to pay the balance amount of Rs.30,000/- within 30 days towards the full sital value of Rs.45,000/-. Accordingly, both the Complainants have paid the balance amount of Rs.30,000/- totaling to Rs.45,000/- each. The Opposite parties as we have already stated above have not disputed this payment. But, thereafter, it is found from the records and also evidence of the Complainants that the Opposite parties did not show any interest in allotting those sites by a final allotment and execute sale deeds. To the letters addressed by the Complainants the Secretary of the Opposite parties sent a reply to the Complainants on 11.07.2005 stating that they have not yet received the modified approved plan from the competent authority and further promised that as soon as they get the modified approved plan they will take further action in the matter. Further, in Complaint No.152/07 the Secretary of the Opposite party has sent a reply to the Complainant that the District Consumer Forum of Mysore has restrained them from executing sale deeds in respect of the sites of their layout and as soon as the order is vacated they will consider the application of the Complainant. In this way, it is manifest from the correspondences and replies of the Opposite parties that they have at no time denied the entitlement of the Complainants for final allotment of sites and went on gaining in time to perform part of the duties. 8. The Opposite parties in their version have stated as if site No.127 & 128 are not now available for allotment as they have already been allotted to other senior members of the society, but they have not placed any materials to prove that those allottees were the seniors than these Complainants. Whatever may be the mischiefs of the Opposite parties but the Complainants have not disputed the contention of the Opposite parties regarding non-availability of site No.127 & 128 for allotment. Therefore, under these circumstances, we hold that the claim of the Complainants that the Opposite parties have caused deficiency in their service in not making final allotment of sites has remained and therefore, the Complainants are entitled for the relief sought for in the following terms. With the result, we answer points no.1 & 2 in the affirmative and we pass the following order:- ORDER 1. The Complaints are allowed. 2. The Opposite parties are held as liable to allot a site each to the Complainants and are directed to allot them a site measuring 30 x 40 each in Nadanahalli Layout within 90 days from the date of receipt of this order, for the same amount that had been fixed for those sites earlier by collecting any other legal fees. 3. The Opposite parties in the event of failing to allot them sites within the period of 90 days they shall pay them Rs.500/- each for each month on the expiry of 90 days till the date of final allotment in their favour. 4. The Opposite parties are also directed to pay cost of Rs.500/- to each to the Complainants. 5. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.