Bangalore Urban


Smt. R,Gayathri - Complainant(s)


vishwabharathi house bldg co. op society - Opp.Party(s)

K S & K S Associates

04 Aug 2008


Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/1465/08

Smt. R,Gayathri


vishwabharathi house bldg co. op society






Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!


Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number


Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.


COMPLAINT FILED: 30.06.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 04th AUGUST 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO.1465/2008 COMPLAINANT Smt.R.Gayathri, W/o Raghunath S.N, Aged about 40 years, R/at No.10-1, 1st Main Road, Sudhamanagar, Bangalore – 560 027. Advocate – Sri.K.S.Venkataramana V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY Viswabharathi House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., No.35, Ratnavilasa Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore – 560 004. Represented by its President, Sri.B.Krishna Bhat. O R D E R 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.2836 measuring 30’ x 50’ and pay a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant being lured away with the advertisement and propaganda issued by the OP who claims to be the House Building Co-operative Society engaged in formation of residential sites of various dimensions in and around Bangalore thought of becoming the member of the OP society. Complainant enrolled herself as a member of OP society in the year 1982 and opted to purchase a site measuring 30’ x 50’ in Phase – IV of the project floated by the OP. OP having accepted the membership of the complainant, allotted her a site No.2836 at the cost of Rs.7,000/-. Complainant paid Rs.5,000/- on 10.07.1982 thereafter though complainant was ready and ever ready and willing to pay remaining Rs.2,000/-. OP failed to register a site in her favour in spite of repeated requests and demands made by her. Ultimately she got issued the legal notice to OP on 01.12.2007. OP on the receipt of the said notice refunded only Rs.5,100/- which complainant didn’t accept. For no fault of her, she is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Though there are availability of certain vacant sites in the said layout, OP with ulterior motive intending to sell the said sites to third parties at a higher rates. Thus complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly. 2. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were sent to the OP. Though OP was 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, OP is placed Ex-parte. 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. 4. It is the case of the complainant that she being lured away with the advertisement and propaganda issued by the OP become the member of the OP house building co-operative society in the year 1982 and opted to purchase a site measuring 30’ x 50’ in Phase – IV of the OP layout at Girinagara, Bangalore. OP accepted the complainant’s membership and allotted her site No.2836, collected Rs.5,000/- out of the total cost of Rs.7,000/-. An intimation of site allotment issued by the OP is produced. 5. It is the grievance of the complainant that though she patiently waited for all these 25 years and made repeated requests and demands to OP to receive the remaining sital value and register the site in her favour, put her in possession, issue the possession certificate but it went in vain. Ultimately she got issued the legal notice on 01.12.2007. Copy of the legal notice is produced. On the receipt of the said legal notice OP replied on 17.12.2007 contending that “we wish to inform you that the one and only way left to us is to refund the site-advance amount along with Share amount”. 6. So on the perusal of the said reply OP has never denied the fact of availability of the said site No.2836 allotted in favour of the complainant nor it is informed to the complainant that due to her default in any form her membership has been cancelled or allotment has been cancelled or the said site is already sold to other eligible member of the said society and it is not readily available at the disposal of the OP. So in absence of such kind of say from the OP we have no other go but to believe the complainant that the said site is still available at the disposal of the OP. 7. The contention of the complainant in that regard finds support from the third and final notice alleged to have been issued by the OP dated 15.02.2008 in the news paper. On the perusal of the said notice OP called upon the members of the 4th phase of Vishwabharathi Housing Complex Layout to get the rectification deed and the sale deed by producing certain documents. The sum and substance of the said notice speaks to the fact that the sites allotted to the members are still available and OP is going to execute the rectification deed or sale deed and ready to dispatch possession certificate, no due certificate, NOC etc. Contents of the said notification is not denied by the OP. Copy of the said notification is produced. 8. Under such circumstances we find the evidence of the complainant finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents. As such she is entitled for the relief claimed. There is nothing to discard her sworn testimony. The non appearance of the OP even after due service of the notice leads us to draw an inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. OP having retained the said amount since 1982 accrued the wrongful gain to itself thereby caused wrongful loss to the complainant for all these 25 years. Complainant for no fault of her is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. There is a proof of deficiency in service. Under such circumstances she deserves the relief now as claimed. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the complainant with respect to site No.2836 in phase-IV measuring 30’ x 50’ in Viswabharathi Housing Complex Layout, Girinagar, Bangalore after receiving the remaining sital value and other necessary charges like stamp duty, registration etc. This order is to be complied within 2 months from the date of its communication. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (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 04th day of August 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Vln*