Complainant:

Mr. Sanjay D. Mehta
Aged 46 years
S/o D.C. Mehta
9/1 Srirampuram
1st Floor, 3rd Main
Sheshadripuram
Bangalore- 560 020


/vs/




Opposite Party:


The Vyalikaval House Building
Co-operative Society Ltd.,
No.100, 6th Main, 11th Cross
Malleswaram
Bangalore – 560 003
R/by its Secretary




O R D E R



SRI. G. SIDDANAGOUD, PRESIDENT:

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite party (Op in short) for the registration of the site measuring 40’ X 60’ as per the provisional allotment letter or alternate site with compensation, house rent, costs and for such other reliefs.

The brief facts of the case are that the Op, the Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., was registered under Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. The main objective of the Society is to acquire lands at Bangalore, form Residential Layouts and allot the sites to its members according to Seniority at NO LOSS NO PROFIT basis. The complainant is a member of the OP. During 1980’s, the Op Society had proposed to develop SIX Residential Layouts, in different parts of Bangalore and called for Applications. In response, more than 12,000 persons including the complainant became members of the Society. From these members the Society had collected more than 50 Crores of rupees as Membership fee, Stial value and Layout charges. In response to the applications called by the Op Society to allot the sites in the above Six proposed Layouts, the complainant became a member of the Society on 10/11/1989. Along with membership fee of Rs.500/- to the Society had collected 50% for the sital value amounting to Rs.20,000/- for a site measuring 40’X60’. On 17/11/1987 the Society had issued a Provisional letter of allotment, confirming that a Site measuring 40’X60’ (2,400 Sq.ft.) was allotted to the complainant in Society’s CHANAKAYAPURI LAYOUT (Nagawara Cholayanayakanahalli) and Vishwanathangenahalli and Gangenahalli side)NAGAR 2nd STAGE LAYOUT.

After collecting the sital value, the Society never bothered to comply with its obligations. Later the complainant received an urgent letter dated 27/09/1993 from the Society stating that the Government had given all the permissions and the BDA had approved the layout plan and requested to pay the following layout charges to complete the layout work.

1.30’X40’ Rs.10,000/-
2.40’X60’ Rs.15,000/-
3.50’X80’ Rs.20,000/-

In the same letter the Society had threatened that “Please note that remittance should reach the office of the Society on or before 25/11/1993 without fail. Failure on part of the members to remit amount in time will not only jeopardize the development of the project, the same may dis-entitle them for priority of allotment of sites. Fearing that the allotment will be cancelled, the complainant had paid Rs.15,000/- on 30/11/1993. Even after collecting 50% of the Sital value of Rs.20,000/- and layout charges of Rs.15,000/- the Society failed to register the site in Complainant’s name. She was time and again assured by the Society that they would register the site in her name at the earliest and the delay was only due to shift in the Government policies. The complainant believed such assurances of the Op and awarded and awaited for the Registration of the site. Hence the complainant approached this forum.

Op appeared through its counsel, filed its version and also gave evidence by way of affidavit. Complainant gave his evidence by way of affidavit. Heard arguments.

The learned counsel for the complainant in his argument reiterated all the facts narrated in the complaint as well as in the affidavit of the complainant. The learned counsel further submitted that, Op has stated as the acquisition itself is stopped and no sites were available, therefore it cannot register its site. But the Op after taking huge amount from the independent person who is not a member of the society, registered the site in their favour.

The Op admitted the payment of the amount by the complainant. But the Op cannot proceed with the acquisition and formation of the layout because of number of litigations between the land owners, society, BDA, and Government. Litigations are went upto Hon’ble Supreme Court and Op cannot form the layout and to satisfy its members and hence prayed for the dismissal of the complaint and it has also stated that Op is a society with motive of no profit and no loss basis, cannot pay any interest to the members and hence prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

All the facts have been admitted in this case. When the Op very well aware that it cannot form the layout unless the litigations are completed. But it went on collecting the amount from the members towards the site value and developmental charges. When the litigations are started it could have stopped the collecting of the amount from the members but issued even provision letter of allotment of sites to its members without completing the procedures. The layouts in some other areas have been formed after completing the procedures. It should have allotted to its members according to the seniority. But after collecting the escalated amount from the 3rd parties the Op registered the sites to them but the actual members deprived of allotment of the site and they have deprived in using of their amount paid by them to the society. This sort of an act on the part of the Op definitely amounts to deficiency in service.

In view of the discussions made above we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the Op. Accordingly we pass the following order.

O R D E R

Complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to register the site measuring 40’ X 60’ as per the provisional allotment letter in favour of the complainant within 4 months from the date of this order. The complainant is directed to pay the balance amount of the site to the OP at the time of registration of the site.
Opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant towards the costs of this litigation.