<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 30.07.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 20th SEPTEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1659/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Smt.M.Banumathi,4, Ananda Nilaya,4th Cross, 2nd Main,Ittamadu, BSK II Stage,Bangalore – 560 085.Advocate – Sri.S.Venkatesh AithalV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The President,The Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society Ltd.,No.100, 6th main,11th Cross, Malleswaram,Bangalore – 560 003.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to register a site at Chanakyapuri layout as per the allotment letter dated 03.12.1986 or allot a different site at any other existing layout and pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant being lured away with the advertisement and propaganda issued by the OP who claims to be the House Building Co-operative Society thought of becoming the member of the said society. OP accepted her membership in the month of November 1982. Complainant thought of purchasing a site measuring 30’ x 40’, then went on paying the cost of the site. OP enhanced the sital value. Complainant has paid in all Rs.14,000/- by 15.02.1985. Earlier complainant was allotted with membership No.2510 thereafter it is renumbered as No.4617 on 03.12.1986. OP allotted her a site at Chanakyapuri layout issued the provisional allotment letter. Thereafter also OP started enhancing the sital value. Though complainant paid the entire sital value OP failed to register a site in her favour. The repeated requests and demands made to the OP went in futile. Ultimately she got issued the legal notice on 28.05.2008. Again there was no response from the OP. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Though complainant waited for more than 25 years in a fond hope of allotment of a site in her favour, her hopes are shattered by the OP due to their inaction, negligence and carelessness. Though complainant invested her hard earned money she is unable to reap the fruits of her investment. For no fault of her, she is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were sent to the OP. Though OP is duly served with the notice remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. The absence of the OP does not appear to be as bona fide and reasonable. Hence OP is placed Ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP didn’t participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. It is the case of the complainant that she being lured away with the advertisement issued by the OP who claims to be the House Building Co-operative Society engaged in formation of residential layouts in and around Bangalore thought of becoming the member of the OP society. OP accepted her membership in the month of November 1982. Complainant was allotted with membership No.2510, she choose to purchase a site measuring 30’ x 40’ then went on paying the sital value, in all she paid Rs.14,000/- by 15.02.1985. Documents to that effect are produced. Later on OP changed the membership number of the complainant one from 2510 to 4617.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 5. It is further contended by the complainant that OP allotted her a site measuring 30’ x 40’ in Chanakyapuri layout and issued the provisional allotment letter dated 03.12.1986. Copy of the letter is produced. Thereafter in spite of the repeated requests and demands made by the complainant, OP failed to register a site in her favour. That is why after lapse of 25 years she has issued notice on 28.05.2008. Legal notice copy, postal acknowledgement are produced. OP did not reply the said notice. Thus complainant felt deficiency in service. According to the complainant though she invested her hard earned money she is unable to reap the fruits of her investment. OP having retained the said money for all these years got enriched itself illegally thereby caused monetary loss and mental agony to the complainant that too for no fault of her.<br /> <br /> 6. Of course the evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. What made her to wait for more than 25 years to redress her grievance is not known. In between 1986 to 2008 no such correspondence is made by the complainant with the OP. Complaint itself discloses that there is some legal hurdles in formation of the said layout and the progress of formation of the layout was tolled. When we take into consideration all these facts, now the burden is on the complainant to prove and establish that Chanakyapuri layout floated by the OP is inexistence, it is duly approved by the statutory authority and some vacant sites of various dimensions free from encumbrances are available at the disposal of the OP. Unfortunately complainant has not produced any documents to show that the said project is completed and vacant sites are at the disposal of the OP.<br /> 7. When that is so, in our considered view complainant is not entitled for allotment and registration of site as prayed. Merely because OP has not appeared is no ground to grant the blanket relief to the complainant unless proves and establish her case. OP has not disputed the receipt of the amount. Non participation of the OP even after due service of the notice leads us to draw an inference that it does not dispute the claim of the complainant with regard to the refund of the sital value. So bearing in mind all these facts and circumstances in our considered view justice will be met by directing the OP to refund the sital value with interest and pay some compensation by way of guidance value of the site as on today along with litigation cost. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP directed to refund Rs.14,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from 03.12.1986 till realization and also pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as guidance value of the site and litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 20th day of September 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Vln* <br />