COMPLAINT FILED: 28.06.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> 20th AUGUST 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1443/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.K.T.Vijaya Krishna Kumar,<br /> S/o K.N.Thimmaiah,<br /> Aged about 53 years,<br /> Residing at No.416,<br /> National Games, Koramangala,<br /> Bangalore.<br /> <br /> Advocate – Sri.Neelakantaiah<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Karnataka State ‘D’ Group Employees Central Association,<br /> M.S Building,<br /> Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi,<br /> Bangalore – 560 001.<br /> <br /> Rep. by its General Secretary,<br /> Sri.C.Govindaraj.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate – Sri.M.V.Balaraj<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 bearing No.1435 in the layout of the OP situated at Srigandhada Kaval and pay a compensation 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 became the member of the OP association. OP accepted his membership and granted him No.353. Complainant thought of purchasing a site measuring 30’ x 50’ at Srigandhada Kaval the layout formed by the OP and paid Rs.69,185/- towards the cost of the said site. OP received the said cost and allotted a site bearing No.1435, issued Hakku Patra. Thereafter in spite of the repeated requests and demands made by the complainant that he is willing to pay the remaining balance, OP failed to register the site in his favour. Thus complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Though he invested his hard earned money to acquire a site he is unable to reap the fruits of the same because of the hostile attitude of the OP. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss for all these 7 – 8 years. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant become the defaulter in non payment of the balance of amount in due. Hence possession certificate is not received. It is further contended that though OP sent several reminders to complainant to comply the terms of the agreement, it went in vain. When complainant didn’t fulfill the requirements of an allotment of a site, OP has not considered his claim. The acts and deeds of the complainant amounts to violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement. When he himself is a defaulter, he can’t allege the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant become the member of the OP association and opted to purchase a site measuring 30’ x 50’ in Srigandhada Kaval layout floated by the OP which was duly approved by the statutory authorities concerned. It is also not at dispute that OP received an amount of Rs.69,185/- towards the cost of the site. On the receipt of the said cost OP allotted him a site bearing No.1435 and issued Hakku Patra. Hakku Patra copy is produced so also the receipts issued by the OP.<br /> <br /> 7. Now it is the grievance of the complainant that though he is ready and ever ready to pay the remaining balance of sital value, OP failed to receive the same and register the site in his favour. He wrote a letter to the OP. Copy of the letter is also produced. Being fed up with the hostile attitude of the OP he even got issued the legal notice. Copy of the legal notice is produced. When there was no response from the OP, complainant felt there is a deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 8. As against this it is contended by the OP that complainant is a defaulter, he failed to pay the total sital value. What is the sital value that is fixed for the said site pertaining to the said layout is not mentioned by the OP and what is the actual amount in due is also not mentioned. It is further contended that OP that they sent several reminders to complainant through letters to pay the remaining amount as per the agreement. Which is that agreement, when it is executed is not known. Copies of the so called reminders, letters addressed to the complainant are not produced by the OP. So whole of the defence of the OP appears to be defence for defence sake, it wants to shirk the responsibility and liability.<br /> <br /> 9. Though OP has contended that there is a violation of terms and conditions on the part of the complainant, for this allegation there is no basic proof. On the other hand we are satisfied that even though OP received the sital value 7 years back failed to register the same. This hostile attitude of the OP amounts to deficiency in service. No where OP has denied the fact that the said site allotted to the complainant bearing No.1435 is further allotted to the third party because of the default of the complainant and that site is not at their disposal or free from any encumbrances. When that is so, we have no other go but to believe the say of the complainant that the said site still exists. Under such circumstances complainant deserves some relief.<br /> <br /> <br /> 10. Of course it is open for the OP to collect the other balance of sital value, registration charges, stamp duty and other miscellaneous charges if at all complainant is in due in pursuance to certain agreement. Non-execution of the sale deed for all these 7 – 8 years must have naturally caused both mental agony and financial loss to the complainant that too for no fault of his. Complainant though invested his hard earned money he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment. It is all because of negligence and carelessness on the part of the OP. Under such circumstances he is entitled for the relief claimed.<br /> <br /> <br /> 11. The evidence of the complainant finds full corroboration with the contents of undisputed documents. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant defence set out by the OP appears to be baseless. Under the circumstances we have no other go but to believe the say of complainant and grant relief in his favour as prayed. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 and proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed. OP is directed to execute the registered sale deed with respect to site No.1435 formed out of Sy. No.25/3 situated at 5th Cross, ‘B’ Block, Srigandhada Kaval, Sunkadakatte Dakhle, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North in favour of the complainant after collecting the balance of sital value if any including that of stamp duty and registration and miscellaneous charges.<br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within two months from the date of its communication. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<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 August 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br />