BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 28^th DAY OF MARCH 2022

ORDER

SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed under Section 35 of C.P.Act, 2019 (herein under referred as an Act) has filed the complaint for the following reliefs against the OP:-

(a) Direct the OP to allot 60 x 40 ft. site

(b) or in the alternative, to refund advance amount of Rs.32,00,000/-/ calculated as per fixed deposit rate.

(c) pass any such orders.

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

The complainant being the member of OP society has paid Rs.25,000/- as advance in the year 1981 for allotment of site.  The OP made an allotment of site measuring 60 x 40 ft. on 31.12.1984.  But, Secretary of the OP made a false assurance that amount will be refunded within three months.  The husband of the complainant died on 25.11.1996.  Even though OP shown the site measuring 60 x 40 ft.  But, failed to allot the site.  The OP had issued letter dated 01.12.2020 to the selected member ignoring the complainant.  The OP has committed deficiency of service.  Hence, this complaint.

3. Despite service of notice, the OP failed to appear before this Commission and OP has been placed exparte.

4. The complainant has filed an application to condone the delay stating that the office bearer of the OP took the complainant and assured that site measuring 60 x 40 ft. would be allotted for the complainant in the year 2004.  But, OP issued Annual General Body meeting notice only to the selected persons on 01.12.2020.  Hence, there is a delay.

5. The complainant failed to lead her evidence.  No argument is advanced on behalf of the complainant.  Perused the records.     

6. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant shows sufficient cause to condone the delay?
2. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OP?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
4. What order?

7. Our answers to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:  In the negative.

      Point Nos.2 and 3:- Do not survive for consideration.

      Point No.4: As per final orders

REASONS

9. Point No.1:  We have taken into consideration allegations made in the complaint and documents produced by the complainant.  The complainant having submitted an application for allotment of site with OP dated 09.11.1982 has paid Rs.10,000/- on 22.10.1981, Rs.5,000/- on 30.05.1982 and Rs.10,000/- on 27.05.1983.  But, OP issued letter dated 31.12.1984 to the complainant stating that site measuring 60 x 40 ft. worth Rs.38,000/- in Gangenahalli would be allotted.  But, complainant addressed a letter in the year 1995 for refund of Rs.25,000/- with interest at 24% p.a.  The OP addressed a letter dated 30.08.1995 stating that arrangement will be made to refund same after three months.  Even after expiry of three months, the complainant remained silent for long long period of 25 years.  The husband of the complainant died on 30.11.1996.  Only on 09.12.2020 the complainant issued legal notice to the OP and another legal notice dated 15.12.2020 calling upon the OP to refund advance amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest.
10. The complainant remained silent for a period of 25 years even after receipt of letter of OP dated 30.08.1995.  Therefore, issuance of legal notice on 09.12.2020 and 15.12.2020 does not save the limitation.    The complainant failed to assign any reason at least sufficient reason to condone the delay of 25 years.  The complainant failed to file complaint within 2 years from 30.08.1995.  The complainant requires to be dismissed on point of limitation.  Accordingly, application filed under Section 5 of limitation is dismissed.
11. Point Nos.2 and 3:- When the complainant failed to show sufficient cause to condone the delay and application requires to be dismissed.  Accordingly, point Nos.2 and 3 do not survive for consideration.

12. Point No.4:- Having regard to the discussion on point No.1 at limitation point, the complaint requires to be dismissed on limitation point. We proceed to pass the following

  O R D E R

1. The I.A. under Section 5 of Limitation Act (even though wrong provision is quoted) is dismissed. Accordingly, complaint is dismissed.
2. No costs.   
3. Furnish the copy of this order to both the parties.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 28^th March, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant which are as follows:-