State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The President, State Governament ... vs Shashikala, D/O Narasreddy, on 16 September, 2022
1
Appeal No.521/2021 & 522/2021
Date of filing: 15.07.2021
Date of disposal: 16.09.2022
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED: 16.09.2022
PRESENT
Mr.K.B SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mrs. DIVYASHREE M : LADY MEMBER
APPEAL NO.521/2021
1) The President,
State Government Employees Housing
Corporation Society Limited,
No.44 and 45, Ground Floor,
Asain Business Centre,
(Behind KBN Hospital),
Kalaburagi - 585102.
2) The Chief Executive Officer,
State Government Employees Housing
Corporation Society Limited,
No.44 and 45, Ground Floor,
Asain Business Centre,
(Behind KBN Hospital),
Kalaburagi - 585102. .....Appellant/s
(Advocate - Sri.S.S Halalli)
V/s
Sri.Shankarappa Banappa Sajjan Shetty,
Age 78 years,
Occ:Retired Government Officer,
House No.18,
Janatha Housing Colony,
2
Appeal No.521/2021 & 522/2021
Karuneshwarnagar,
New Jewargi Road,
Kalaburagi - 585310. .....Respondent/s
(Advocate - Sri.Byregowda N)
APPEAL NO.522/2021
1) The President,
State Government Employees Housing
Corporation Society Limited,
No.44 and 45, Ground Floor,
Asain Business Centre,
(Behind KBN Hospital),
Kalaburagi - 585102.
2) The Chief Executive Officer,
State Government Employees Housing
Corporation Society Limited,
No.44 and 45, Ground Floor,
Asain Business Centre,
(Behind KBN Hospital),
Kalaburagi - 585102. .....Appellant/s
(Advocate - Sri.S.S Halalli)
V/s
Shashikala,
D/o Narasreddy,
Age 42 years,
Occ: Assistant Teacher,
R/o Plot No.36/8, Biddapur Colony,
Kalaburagi - 585103. .....Respondent/s
(Advocate - Sri.Byregowda N)
3
Appeal No.521/2021 & 522/2021
COMMON ORDER
Mr.K.B SANGANNANAVAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER These Appeals are filed U/s.15 of C.P Act, 1986 by OP-1 & 2 in CC No.158/2019 and 175/2019 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kalaburagi, aggrieved by the order dated 21st April 2021.
2. The Commission examined the grounds of Appeal, impugned order and heard learned counsel on record for the Appeals.
3. Learned counsel for Appellants submit, complaints filed are beyond the period of limitation and such complaints were been entertained, even without condoning delay and submits Consumer Commission shall have no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute between members of co-operative societies and the society. Further submits, the alleged legal notice dated 16.08.2019, alone will not extend limitation against his own admission, as a decision was taken to allot a new site in General Body held on 25.09.2016 which was date of cause of action and not the date of legal notice was not considered by Forum below.
4. In Appeal No.521/2021 site No.25 has been got registered in favour of the complainant under registered sale deed dated 21.11.2012 and in Appeal No.522/2021 site No.26 has been got 4 Appeal No.521/2021 & 522/2021 registered in favour of the complainant under registered sale deed dated 05.12.2015. Accordingly the respective complainants have been paying property tax to the concerned Panchayat is sufficient to make it clear that there was no high tension line passing through the said land at that point of time. It is only on the receipt of letter by KPTCL dated 24.02.2016, Appellant society came to know that the high tension line is passing through survey No.85/1 & 85/2.
5. Let us examine the impugned order, wherein could see the respective complainants in their complaints have sought for issuance of direction to Appellant No.1 & 2 to allot plot and register a new plot measuring 40'x60' at the old price which has already been paid and to direct OPs/Appellants to refund Rs.5,26,200/- along with interest @ 18% p.a and to compensate for appreciation of the present market value of the plot as per Rs.3,500/- per square feet and sought award of compensation of Rs.1 lakh. They have also sought for other ancillary reliefs against OPs.1 & 2 for rendering deficiency of service and the complaints were contested by OPs and the Commission below held, Commission has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and in CC No.158/19 connected to Appeal No.521/2021, directed OPs.1 & 2 jointly and severally to deposit a sum of Rs.5,26,200/- together with interest @ 12% p.a from 21.11.2012 till realization and shall deposit a sum of Rs.35,395/- together with interest @ 12% p.a from 21.11.2012 till realization and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards issuance of legal notice and Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony and 5 Appeal No.521/2021 & 522/2021 Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation. After depositing the amount so ordered complainant is at liberty to receive the said amount and OPs.1 & 2 are at liberty to get the sale deed cancel as per law in respect of plot bearing No.25 measuring 2540 square feet in land bearing survey No.85/1 & 85/2 situated at Nagenahalli village at their own costs and similar such order also passed in CC No.175/2019 connected to the another appeal, in respect of plot bearing No.26 measuring 2180 square feet situated in survey No.85/1 & 85/2. The Forum below almost passed similar order except as to the quantum and directed OP.1 & 2 to pay Rs.4,26,200/- along with interest @ 12% p.a and directed further to pay Rs.28,785/- along with interest @ 12% p.a till realization. Thus in both of the complaints filed were been allowed in part. The purport of these orders passed by the Commission below would be that in view of high tension line passing through survey No.85/1 and 85/2 wherein site No.25 & 26 have been allotted in favour of complainants and the sale deeds were been executed in their favour and as Commission found there is a high tension wires in the center of plot purchased by complainants and as they continuously persuaded the matter with the OPs seeking for allotment of another site with same size at the same rate, though OPs have taken decision in the General Body to allot new site in their favour on the same rate but they found failed to allot new sites as decided. In such circumstances, the complainants were forced to issue legal notice dated 31.07.2019, was considered as the date of cause of action and found complaints filed well within time limitation as provided U/s.24(A) of C.P Act, 1986, cannot be 6 Appeal No.521/2021 & 522/2021 said either contrary to the facts or law. The Commission is of the view that the commission below rightly held Commission has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaints, since forming layout by society to allot sites is nothing but consumer dispute well within definition of Sec.2(d) and service as defined U/s.2(o) of C.P Act, 1986. It is not in dispute that OP is a society formed with an object to provide sites to members suffice to hold case comes within the ambit of definition of Sec.2(o) of the Act. As such contention of counsel for Appellant society that in complaint No.1957/2017 in case of Jitendra Kumar Sharma Vs. The Delhi Co-operative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd., (DCHFC) decided by State Commission, Delhi, wherein held OP-2 was discharging its statutory function which cannot be amenable to jurisdiction of consumer Foras, could not be applied to the facts of the case. Further contention of counsel for Appellant that dispute between society and members may be referred for Arbitration is again could not be come to the assistance of the Appellant in view of Sec.3 of C.P, Act, 1986. The Counsel placed a reliance decided by Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in R.P No.1802/2018 in a case of Jagdish Singh Chauhan Vs. ECIL Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd., wherein held the only relied issue was with regard to Arbitration but in the case on hand was decided appreciating not only the provisions of C.P Act, Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the provisions of Co-operative Societies Act. The decision in the case of Naren Pravin Sanghvi Vs. Sunray's Co-operative Housing Society decided by Hon'ble National Commission wherein the facts are entirely different, since in the 7 Appeal No.521/2021 & 522/2021 said case, complainant had purchased flat from one Mr.Suri and become a resident member of OP Society, whereas the Appellant herein is indulged in forming layout to allot sites to its members as a service provider defined U/s.2(o). Therefore, viewed from any angle contention of Appellant that complaints raised by complainants were not maintainable before Forum and the contention that the Fora has failed to appreciate the materials on record is unacceptable. In so for as contention of Appellants that the complaints filed after lapse of 5 years without application filed for condonation of delay is already is examined by Forum by recording sound reasons needs no further discussions. In such conclusion Commission did not find any errors much less as shown in the Appeal memo committed by the commission below. Hence dismissed both the Appeals with no order as to costs.
6. Amount in deposit is directed to be transfer to the District Commission for needful.
7. Provide copy of this order to the District Commission as well as parties to the appeal.
8. Keep the original of this order in Appeal No.521/2021 and copy thereof in other connected Appeal.
LADY MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER vln*