AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE complainant, a member of N.G.Os. Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. Mahabubnagar was allotted plot No. 182 in phase-2 of M.I.G.-1 provisionally and tentative cost was fixed at Rs. 10/- per Sq. Yard and the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 2,400/- being the tentative cost of 240 Sq. Yards on 15.10.91. THEreafter the cost of the land was enhanced from Rs. 10/- to Rs. 24/- for development of land, lay-out fees, Court expenditure. It is alleged in the complaint that due to the change in the family affairs, the complainant left Mahabubnagar for Hyderabad and resumed duty in Intelligence Department on 6.1.1982and the change of address was intimated to the society. It was further stated that on 22.9.88 the President of the Society Sri C.K. Narayanachary asked the complainant to pay the difference of cost of the plot of Rs. 1440/- and assured him that a plot will be allotted to him shortly. But on 9.8.89 the complainant received a letter dated 15.6.89 from the Chairman of the society suggesting to the complainant to apply for refund of deposit of amount. Immediately thereafter the complainant addressed the Chairman of the said society marking a copy to the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Mahabubnagar, stating that he has not received any earlier letter, from the society and therefore asking of the complainant to apply for refund is illegal and threatening to take legal action against the society for cheating and misappropriation. In reply to the said letter, the society on 29.11.89 informed the complainant that number of letters were sent under certificate of posting demanding payment of enhanced cost and the same was published in Eenadu and Siasat informing that if the allottees failed to pay the enhanced cost, the allotment will be cancelled and plots will be re-allotted to other members. Since the complainant did not pay the amount, the matter was referred to the Divisional Cooperative Officer, who ordered for resumption of all plots. Accordingly, the allotment of the plot to the complainant was cancelled on 15.10.86 and the plot No.182 was allotted to another member. THE complainant was sent a reply on 2.2.90 stating that subsequently an amount of Rs. 1,500/- was paid. But as the complainant was not informed that further payments have to be paid, the cancellation of allotment of plot to him was illegal and therefore requested that the complainant may be permitted to pay the difference of cost and for re-allotment of the plot to him. But the society sent a reply on 22.2.90 informing that there is no chance to restore the plot No.182 M.I.G.-I to the complainant as it was allotted to another eligible member in the year 1986.
AGGRIEVED by the attitude of the society, the above C.D. is filed claiming the refund of Rs. 3,840/- being the value or the amount paid by him with charges of Rs. 200/- and a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-. In the counter filed, it was stated that plot No. 182 in Phase No. II of M.I.G.-I, was provisionally allotted to the complainant at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. yard and the complainant paid Rs. 2,400/- on 15.10.81. But there was a subsequent increase in the cost and as the Land Acquisition Officer directed payment of amount, the society fixed land value at Rs. 24/- per sq. yard instead of Rs. 10/- and intimated that all the members who were allotted M.I.G.-I of 240 sq. yards shall pay further amount of Rs. 3,400/- by its circular dt.4/21.11.85 to all the members including the complainant under certificate of posting which is Annexure No. 3. As there was no response from many members including the complainant, another circular dt. 21.12.85 (Annexure No. 4) was issued under certificate of posting to the defaulting members to pay the difference of cost by 5.1.86 and in default, the allotment of plot would be cancelled. A further circular was sent on 6.1.86 (Annexure No. 6) to all the defaulting members including the complainant to pay the difference of cost by 15.1.86 and in default the names of such members would be deleted from the allotment register (Annexure No. 7). Further, the society also published in the news pa perst.e.inEenadudt.22.1.86 (Annexure No. 8) and Siasat dt.22.1.86 (Annexure No. 9) as a final chance to pay the amount due by 5.2.86. As the complainant did not pay the amount, a list of 85 members including the complainant at SI. No. 26 was prepared and sent to the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Mahabubnagar to approve the action of the society in canceling the allotment of plots to the defaulting members and resumption of the same by the society. The Divisional Cooperative Officer by his proceedings dt. 15.10.86 (Annexure No. 10) approved the action of the society in canceling the allotment of plots of the defaulting members. Thereafter by proceedings dt. 5.11.86 the plot No. 182 was allotted to Mr. Ali Yar Khan who paid all the amounts in respect of the said plot and has constructed a house thereon with the financial assistance of A.P. Housing Federation, Hyderabad. At the stage, the Complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 1,440/- on 5.9.88 without any intimation by the society and without any approval of the society. Since the complainant deposited a total amount of Rs. 3,840/- the President of the Society by letter dt. 22.9.88 intimated the complainant that a plot will be allotted to him. But the reference of allotment can only be to future ventures as by that time, the allotment of plot No. 182 to the Complainant was cancelled and the same was allotted to Mr. Ali Yar Khan. It is further submitted that inspite of number of intimations sent under certificate of posting and publication in the newspapers, the complainant did not pay the amount and therefore the allotment was rightly cancelled. It was further submitted that legality or other wise of the cancellation of the allotment can only be questioned by way of proceedings under Cooperative Act or in the civil suits and cannot be agitated before this Commission, as there is no deficiency of service or defects in the goods sold.
From the aforesaid averments, it is clear that initially the plot No. 182 in Phase-II of M.I.G.-I was allotted to the Complainant and he paid Rs. 2,400/-. The Complainant was informed by letter dt 13.5.85, in reply to his letter dt. 10.5.85, that he has to furnish affidavit on Rs. 5/- non-judicial stamp paper duly not arised, along with salary certificate and service particulars signed by the drawing officers, to enable him forgetting 70% loan sanctioned by the HUDCO, New Delhi. The complainant was further informed that he had paid Rs. 2,400/- and in the case the complainant wants a house of his own in the society, he has to pay about Rs. 14000/- towards his share of 30% cost and therefore the complainant was requested to pay Rs. 5,000/- initially before 1st week of June 1985. The complainant was further informed that if he has no interest for construction of a house in the society, he should send an undertaking surrendering his plot and all the rights over it to the society. But the complainant did not pay the amount of Rs. 5,000/-. As there were number of defaulters, the society by its circular dt. 4/21.11.95 intimated to all the defaulting members including the complainant to pay a further sum of Rs. 3,400/- for the M.I.G.-I-240 Sq. Yards by 1.12.85 and that unless the amount is deposited, the. loan application cannot be submitted. The complainant was also informed by 21.12.85 (Annexure No. 4) to pay the difference of cost by 5.1.86 in default, the allotment of the plot will be cancelled. A similar circular was issued on 6.1.86. A paper publication was also made on 22.1.86 calling upon the defaulting members to pay the amount by 5.12.86 as final chance. As the complainant did not pay the amount, a resolution was passed canceling the allotment of the plots and the same was approved by the Divisional Cooperative Officer on 15.10.86 and the plot was allotted to another member Mr. Ali Yar Khan. Thus, it is evident that by the date, the complainant paid a further amount of Rs. 1,400/- without being intimated by the society and take an acknowledgement from the President that he pa id the total amount of Rs. 3,840/- the allotment in his favour was cancelled. This will not in any way entitle the complainant for re-allotment of the plot which was already cancelled and allotted to some other member. The statement in the acknowledgement of the President that the plot will be allotted shortly can only refer to future ventures.
IN these circumstances, we are satisfied that the action of the Divisional Cooperative Officer is perfectly justified and that the allotment of plot No.182 was validly cancelled and that the question whether the cancellation is valid or invalid, cannot be gone into in this proceedings. We find that cancellation of the plot for failure to pay the installments is not a deficiency in service and it will not also amount to sale of goods and the complaint apart from not being maintainable also is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. At this stage, the society offered as was intimated earlier to the complainant that it is prepared to refund the amount deposited by the complainant. But the complainant submitted that the amount may be retained by the society and as and when if any plots become vacant in Phase-II of M.I.G.-I due to cancellation or otherwise, the complainant''s claim may be considered for allotment or if the plots are not available in this phase, the complainant may be allotted a plot in future ventures at the prevailing cost and the amount of deposit already may be adjusted towards the same. To this, the society has no objection. We accordingly direct the opposite party to consider the allotment of any plot in this venture, if there is any cancellation or any plot being available for being allotted and if it is not possible to allot any plot in this venture, the society shall consider the allotment of plot to the complainant in future ventures and adjust the amount already paid by the complainant towards the cost of the plot as fixed in the future venture.
WITH the aforesaid directions, the complaint is dismissed. They will be no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.