Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> COMMON ORDER IN CC 88 and 89/07<br /> <br /> 1. Though these two complaints are filed by different complainants but are against the same common Opposite parties with same set of grievances all most and the version of the Opposite parties is common. Therefore, with concerned of both the parties are clubbed together for disposing by a common order. <br /> 2. The petitioners have come up with these Complaints under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with their common grievance, that they are the members of the Opposite parties House Building Co-operative Society and they have paid requisite sital value for allotment of sites to them in Nadanahalli Layout of Mysore, but the Opposite parties have caused deficiency in their service in not allotting sites to them.<br /> 3. The Complainant of the 1st Complaint has further contended that he has deposited a sum of Rs.47,000/- with 1st & 2nd Opposite parties and they allotted him a site bearing No.163 of Nadanahalli Layout of Mysore measuring 30’ x 40’ vide allotment letter dated 05.09.1998.<br /> 4. It is the grievance of the Complainant of the 2nd Complaint that he has deposited a sum of Rs.45,603/- with Opposite parties in response to which the Opposite parties allotted site No.67 measuring 30’ x 40’ of Nadanahalli Layout vide allotment letter dated 05.09.1998.<br /> 5. The Complainants have further contended that the Opposite parties have also issued letter of conferment, confirming the allotment of site. The Opposite parties have also issued a notice to them promising to register the site. But thereafter despite they approaching the Opposite parties they have not executed sale deeds transferring title of the sites allotted to them, but on the contrary the Opposite parties went on allotting sites to other members who are juniors to them. Thus, the Opposite parties have caused deficiency in not executing sale deeds in respect of sites allotted to them and therefore, have prayed for allotment of a site each to them measuring 30’ x 40’ and also to pay damages of Rs.5,000/- and award litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-.<br /> 6. The Opposite parties have filed their common version, but have contended that the complainants have only paid them Rs.45,000/- each and not the amounts as stated by them in their Complaints. It is also contended by them that they are not aware of the allotment of sites and allotment letters issued to them by the previous board as 1st Opposite party has assumed office of the President only with effect from 09.04.2007 and 2nd Opposite party is working with effect from 12.06.2006. These Opposite parties further denying all other allegations of the Complaints, in para-7 of their version have stated that an extent of 00.32 gs. in the Nadanahalli Layout is in dispute, plan of which is being submitted to the MUDA for approval. Soon after the approval and formation, sites will be allotted to complainants and register 30’ x 40’ dimension sites out of 32 gs. of land by claiming additional charges if any. Hence, the Opposite parties have stated that there is no deficiency of service and prayed for dismissal of the Complaints.<br /> 7. During the enquiry of these Complaints, the Complainants have filed their affidavit evidence and the President of the Opposite party Society has also filed his affidavit evidence. The Complainants have produced certain documents. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records.<br /> 8. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise:-<br /> 1. Whether the Complainants proves that the Opposite parties have caused deficiency in service in not allotting and registering sites to them despite receipt of the sital value?<br /> 2. Whether the complainants are entitled for the relief as prayed for?<br /> 3. What order? <br /> 9. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the Affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : Answered in the affirmative in part.<br /> Point no.3 : See the final order.<br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 10. Points no. 1 & 2:- In the course of arguments, the counsel representing both the parties submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the facts that both these Complainants are the members of Opposite parties House Building Co-operative Society have deposited considerable amounts towards the value of the sites proposed for allotment and therefore, there is no doubt regarding eligibility of these Complainants for getting a site each allotted to them. With these admitted facts, the learned counsel appearing for the Opposite parties submitted that at present no vacant sites are available with Opposite parties for allotment to the Complainants. However, the Opposite parties are having 32 gs. of land in Nadanahalli Layout at their disposal and as soon as the Opposite parties get the approval of the MUDA, they will allot a site each to the Complainant on priority basis by collecting the balance sital value and necessary legal charges. The learned counsel appearing for the Complainants responded positively and agreed, if the Opposite party agrees to allot a site each to the Complainant out of 32 gs. of land which is in their possession as stated in para-7 of their version. The Complainants have no objection for recording the same and to pass an order accordingly. <br /> 11. Having heard the counsel for both the parties and found the payments made by the Complainants to the Opposite parties for allotment of sites and their eligibility for getting a site each allotted to them and further considering the submission made by the counsel for the Opposite party that there are no vacant sites available for allotment and they would allot a site each to the Complainant out of 32 gs. of land available with them as stated in para-7 of the version, we hold that there is no dispute remains to be resolved by this Forum. Therefore, basing on the submissions made by the counsels for both the parties, we hold that the Complaints are entitled for a direction for allotment of sites, against the Opposite parties. The contention of the Complainants that the Opposite parties have allotted sites to the members who are juniors to them. However, has not been contradicted by the Opposite parties, therefore to that extent, we hold that the Opposite parties have also not placed any materials before this Forum in not considering the case of the Complainants for allotment of sites for all these years and therefore, there is deficiency in their service. As the result, the Complaints deserve to be allowed in part. With the result, we answer point no.1 in the affirmative and point no.2 in the affirmative in part and pass the following order:- <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaints are allowed in part.<br /> 2. The Opposite parties are jointly and severally are held liable for deficiency and they are directed to allot a site each to the Complainant measuring 30’ x 40’ from out of 32 gs. of land available at their disposal in Nadanahalli Layout as soon as it gets the approval of MUDA on priority basis. In the event of the Opposite party failing to allot sites to the Complainants as stated above despite getting the approval of MUDA they are directed to pay damages of Rs.1,000/- each per month to the complainants from the date of filing of these Complaints till the date of allotment.<br /> 3. The Opposite parties shall also pay a cost of Rs.500/- each to the Complainants being the cost of these Complaints.<br /> 4. Keep the original order copy in CC 88/07 and Xerox copy of the order in CC 89/07.<br /> 5. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br />