State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
T.S.Gayathri vs M/S Coffee Board Employees Co-Op. ... on 18 August, 2022
1 CC/423/2019
Date of Filing : 26.08.2019
Date of Disposal : 18.08.2022
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF AUGUST 2022
PRESENT
Mr.K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mrs.M.DIVYASHREE : LADY MEMBER
CC-NO.423/2019
T.S.Gayathri
W/o N.Vishwanath Rao,
Aged About 56 Years,
R/at No.10, Srinivasa Nilaya,
Damodara Mudaliar Street,
Ulsoor, Bengaluru-560008. ..Complainant
(By Adv.Sri.Pavan.K.M)
VS
1.
M/s.Coffee Board Employees Co-Op
Housing Society Ltd.,
Regd.Office at: No.1,
Coffee Board Premises,
Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bengaluru-560001.
Rep. by
1. Rajanna, President
2. N.Jayaram, Paid Secretary .... Opposite party/s
(OP.2 By Adv.Sri.D.K.Sriramappa)
2 CC/423/2019
ORDER
BY Mr. K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. This is the complaint filed U/s.17 of CPA 1986 with following reliefs sought against OPs:
a) Direct OPs to specify the date when they commit to hand over of possession and compensate the Complainant for the loss caused due to the delay in allotting the site as promised by OPs.
OR
b) Direct the OPs to pay the claimed damaged amount of Rs.29,55,560/-, and litigation cost of Rs10,000/-.
2. OPs are shown to be represented by the President and Secretary of whom OP.2/secretary is represented by learned counsel.
3. It is the case of the Complainant that, she is one of the purchasers of plot/site from OPs who advertised that they are developing the residential layout at Meesaganahalli, situated opposite to International Airport Road, Bengaluru. As the OPs offered him a site measuring 30'x40' at Rs.525/- per sq.ft, she became the member of society and had paid Rs.6,32,010/- being entire sale consideration. She alleged against OPs that, even after lapse of 13 years, failed to allot site in her favour, despite her payment made towards sale consideration being entire sale consideration. She alleged against OPs that they have allotted site 3 CC/423/2019 in the year 2012 for some other persons without considering her seniority for allotments for the reasons best known to them. They called fresh applications in the year 2011 for the Bianahalli project which also situated opposite to International Airport road. She alleged despite several requests made to OPs either to refund the paid amount or to get register the site/plot in her name, OPs went on postponing on one or the other pretext. In such circumstances, she constrained to issue legal notice dtd.29.07.2019 requesting OPs to register the site in her name or to return the money paid by her within 15 days. Since OPs failed, she has raised this complaint to pay Rs.29,55,560/- along with litigation cost.
4. This complaint is received on 26.08.2019 through advocate came to be admitted, and the OPs in particular OP.2 failed to submit version, in other words on 07.04.2021 IA filed by OP.2 seeking permission to file version came to be rejected since version is filed after expiry of 45 days. The notice of the complaint is served on 22.11.2019 as per proceeding note sheet, and the OP.2 sought permission to file version submitting IA along with version on 07.04.2021 which came to be rejected.
5. In the above such circumstances, Commission held an enquiry by receiving affidavit evidence and documents from Complainant, and after closure of enquiry, to decide on the alleged deficiency in 4 CC/423/2019 service on the part of Ops, and if it is shown, what reliefs could be granted in favour of the Complainant in the circumstances of the case ?
6. The Complainant has reiterated the contents of the complaint in her affidavit evidence and to find support produced few documents commencing from Membership Letter (wherein could see the name of Smt.T.S.Gayathri/Complainant herein), Application for registration of site, Letter dtd.16.03.2017 to pay balance amount, Request for allotment of site, payment receipts, copy of legal notice, and postal receipts. Thus these documents would go to show that she has paid Rs.6,32,010/- with fond hope to get site/plot from the OP society. She got issued legal notice either to allot site or to refund. In so far as pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission, Commission has to follow the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission reported in 2015 4 CPR (NC) 34 in the case of Swarn Talwar & Ors. Vs. Unitech Ltd., decided on 14.08.2015.
7. Further Complainant has shown that Rs.6,32,010/- was paid commencing from 2006 to 2017. In such circumstances, Complainant has to be held entitle for refund of such amount from OP society. Had this amount was paid to some other society or could have been utilised to purchase the site in and around Bengaluru city at that point of time, would have fetched more 5 CC/423/2019 value. In such circumstances, awarding of interest on this amount would meet ends of justice. Learned counsel for OP.2 submits that Complainant has sought for 24% p.a. of interest which in our view is exorbitant. But facts remain that OP society has received hard earned money from the member/Complainant in between 2006 and 2017. It is therefore, Commission is of the considered view that awarding of interest at 15% p.a. from the date of receipt of the amount which would meet ends of justice. Accordingly, proceed to allow the complaint in part and directed OP.1 & 2 to pay Rs.6,32,010/- minus Rs.2,010/- paid towards membership fees along with interest at 15% p.a. from the date of receipt till realisation, and do pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and inconvenience, and Rs.25,000/- towards litigation cost within 60 days from the date of order.
8. Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.
Lady Member Judicial Member
*NS*