State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
T H Ramakrishna vs H P Vishwanath on 18 February, 2022
Daily Order BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH : PRESIDENT MR. K. B. SANGANNAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. DIVYASHREE M. : MEMBER Appeal Nos. 758/2021 to 767/2021 T.H. Ramakrishna President, Karnataka Rajya Sarkari Noukarara Sang Samithi Zilla Shakhe Gruha Nirmana Vibhaga G-18, K.K. Complex, Opp. Bank of India Karnataka Bar Circle, 100 ft. Road Mandya Appellant is common in all the cases.
(By Sri. H.P. Gangesh Gowda) V/s ......Appellant Appeal No.758/2021 Vishwanath S/o. Puttaswamy Shetty No. KL 1061, Akshaya Nilaya Nagar, Kallahalli, Mandya .....Respondent Appeal No.759/2021 Chandrappa S/o. Venkataswamy No. 36, LIG 2nd Stage KHB Colony, Kuvempu Nagar .....Respondent Appeal No.760/2021 Nagaraju S/o. Late B. Lingaiah Village Taluk, Mandya .....Respondent Appeal No.761/2021 Mahadevu No. 35, LIG, 2nd Stage Nagar, Mandya .....Respondent Appeal No.762/2021 Devaraju S/o. Jayaramashetti Village Taluk Mandya Dist.
.....Respondent Appeal No.763/2021 Jayaswamy S/o. Mayigaiah Village Hobli, Mandya Taluk .....Respondent Appeal No.764/2021 W/o. Late Anandasetti Village Taluk Mandya Dist.
.....Respondent Appeal No.765/2021 S/o. K. Madayya No. 35, LIG 2nd Stage Nagar, Mandya Taluk .....Respondent Appeal No.766/2021 Puttaswamy S/o. Borasetti Halleger Gram Hobli, Mandya Taluk .....Respondent Appeal No.767/2021 Narasimhamurthy S/o. Narasimha Setti Village Taluk, Mandya .....Respondent O R D E R Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH , PRESIDENT These appeals are preferred by OP under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 06.03.2020 passed in C.C.Nos.120, 119, 121, 118, 116, 115, 114, 123, 125, 124 all of the year 2018 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandya.
Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP in not allotting sites inspite of deposit of sital value these complaints are filed seeking refund of amount with interest, compensation and costs. District Forum allowed the complaints directing OP No.1 to refund the amount deposited by the complainants along with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from respective date of payment along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards costs within two months. Being aggrieved by the said order OP No. 1 is in appeal. Heard the counsel for appellant and respondents in-person. It is submitted by respondents that the order of the District Forum to refund amount is just and proper and sought for dismissal of appeal. Perused the appeal memo and the impugned order. District Forum considering the fact that despite receipt of amount towards site, OP failed to allot site to complainants/ respondents, hence, has rightly come to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service and passed the impugned order directing to refund the amount with interest. There is also delay of 533 days in preferring the appeal and no grounds made out in the affidavit filed by the appellant to condone this enormous delay. Thus, these appeals are liable to be dismissed even on delay. It is also noted that more than 1 ½ year lapsed by passing of the impugned order. The appellant failed to take any proper steps to comply with the order and also there are numerous cases have been filed by the appellant as well as members of the society. Considering all these facts we are of the view that there is no scope for interference in the impugned order. Hence, these appeals are liable to be dismissed directing OP to comply with the order of the District Forum along with developers. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed. Three months time is given to the appellant for compliance from the date of receipt of this order. Amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to the District Forum for needful.
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT CV*