J NANDA RANKA W/O B JAWAHARLAL RANKA Vs. TELECOM EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD (REGD) & 3 ORS; G BABU-PRESIDENT, TELECOM EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD (REGD); B V DATHATHREYA; C V MANJUNATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 10th February 2017 of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore ('the State Commission') in First Appeal no. 601 of 2015.

(2.) The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the respondent/ opposite party in their notification dated 05/04/2006 had published and informed that, they had been able to procure additional lands at Ramgiri, Next to Gokula Vidya Kendra within 05 kilometer from the International Airport NH 17 and nearer to Sir. M. Vishweshwaraiah Institute of Technology and ITC Factory and 28 Kilometers from Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore. They also assured that, they would complete the infrastructure with wide tar road, water, underground drainage with sewerage treatment plant, electricity, borewell and landscape for park, garden, avenue trees and compound wall with gate. The respondent had also assured about clear marketable title and that the layout would be got approved by BIAPPA after conversion of the land use within two years and undertook to provide the site at Rs.350/- per sq. ft. The initial site deposit @ Rs.200/- per sq. ft, according to the dimension of the site offered was to be paid along with membership fee of Rs.1,020/-. Another instalment of the site deposit of Rs.100/- per sq. ft was to be paid after the approval of the plan. The remaining amount was to be paid on allotment and at the time of registration of sites. The petitioner submitted that he on different dates paid a total of Rs.7,22,020/- but the respondent/ opposite party had failed to provide any documents relating to the layout or its approval. Therefore, the petitioner and her husband had repeatedly visited the office of the respondent No.1 and made personal requests with the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to issue specific allotment letter along with possession certificate and sale deed. For which, the respondent expressed their difficulty to provide the site with allotment letter due to several problems faced by the society and requested the petitioner not to take any legal action as they would resolve the pending issues and start the allotment of sites to the members on priority on first come first basis. Thereafter, the petitioner got issued a Legal Notice on 23/11/2013 for registration of site or in the alternative refund of the advance amount paid by the petitioner but the respondent failed to reply or comply with the same. Hence, the petitioner filed the present complaint with the following prayer:

(3.) On issuance of the notice, advocate for the respondents appeared and filed their version. The respondents admitted that, the petitioner had applied for allotment of site measuring 40 X 60 feet at Green Field Garden Phase III through Mr Pitambarswamy and had deposited Rs.4,80,000/- being the initial deposit towards allotment of site measuring 40 X 60 fee and paid share amount of Rs.2,000/- and on further instruction given by the respondents the petitioner had paid further amount of Rs.100/- per sq. ft totalling to a sum of Rs.2,40,000/-. Further the respondents submitted that, the progress of housing projects of the respondents were briefed to all the members who had attended the Annual General Body Meeting which was held in the month of September of every year and informed that the respondents had appointed a developer for acquiring suitable land, obtain all approvals, since there was a prohibition under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act against purchasing of agricultural land by any Society. The approvals and conversions of layout were under progress and sites were released by the BIAPPA for registration. Hence, there was no malafide intention and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. If however the petitioner was unwilling to accept the allotment of site, she was at liberty to receive back the amount paid by her along with a reasonable rate of interest as decided by the District Forum.