Complainant failed to prove the genuineness of her Payment, thus Complaint dismissed: Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Complainant claimed that she had paid Rs 2,50,000 to the Opposite Party and that the same was reflected in her Pass Book. The original receipt number and the one she presented before the Commission did not tally. This fact was overlooked by the District Commission. This was observed in the matter of The President, Mandya City Govt. Employees House Building v. G. Leela, [ First Appeal No. A/2121/2017], heard before, Hon’ble Presiding Member Mr. Ravishankar and Hon’ble Member Mrs. Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi.  The brief facts of the dispute are as follows; the complainant had paid Rs.2,50,000/- to the Opposite Parties’ Society for the allotment of the site. After paying the stated amount, the opposing parties did not provide a site, so she requested a refund of the amount.  However, the OPs have postponed refunding the stated amount for various reasons. As a result, she complained to the District Commission in Mandya about deficiency of service. Following the filing of the complaint, the Opposite Parties appeared before the District Commission and denied all of the allegations contained in the complaint. After the trial, the District Commission granted the complaint and ordered the opposing parties to pay Rs.2,50,000/- plus interest, costs, and compensation. The appellant has filed a complaint with this Commission because he was dissatisfied with the said order. After hearing the arguments from both the sides, the Court found out that, that the complainant asserted that she paid an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards the allocation of the site to opposing parties and that she produced one pass book before the District Commission to show that they had supported for receipt of the said amount However, she has not presented the original receipt to the District Commission. There is an entry in the Passbook that she has paid an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and it represents that receipt number11000, however when they examined the original receipt number, 11000, it stands in the name of one Manohara and was issued by the OP No.1 Society towards enrolment of the membership. The receipt number mentioned in the passbook and the original receipt do not match. The learned counsel for the appellant strongly contended that the complainant was a member of the Society, and that according to the rules, she was assigned one site in exchange for a consideration amount, and that the site was registered in her name in 1999. She was no longer eligible to join another site and to become a member. The Commission held that, “we suspect a doubt with respect to the genuinenity of the Passbook. We are of the opinion that the passbook may be created by the Ex-Secretary of the Society who was under trial for misappropriation and cheating………. the complainant had not produced the original document to show that she had paid an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the Society even after registering a site in the year 1999 itself. Therefore, the order passed by the District Commission lacks legality. The District Commission failed to appreciate the original receipt produced by the Respondent which stands in the name of one Manohar. As such the order requires to be set-aside.”
KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN BANGALORE First Appeal No. A 2121 2017 Date of Filing : 27 Oct 2017 Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District 1. The President Mandya City Govt. Employees House Building Co operative Society Ltd. B.M.Rudrappa s Mangaiah Mansion Ashoknagar Mandya 571401 2. The Secretary Mandya City Govt. Employees House Building Co operative Society Ltd. B.M.Rudrappa s Mangaiah Mansion Ashoknagar Mandya 571401 1. G. Leela W o K.N.Krishna Murthy Aged about 63 years R a No.2357 3rd cross Gandhinagar Mandya HON BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER HON BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER Dated : 08 Oct 2021 Final Order Judgement THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH DATED THIS THE 8 DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 1 SRI RAVI SHANKAR JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI MEMBER APPEAL NO. 2121 2017 1. The President Mandya City Govt. Employees House Building Co Operative Society Ltd. B.M.Rudrappa’s Mangaiah Mansion Ashoknagar Mandya 571 401 2. The Secretary Mandya City Govt. Employees House Building Co Operative Society Ltd B.M.Rudrappa’s Mangaiah Mansion Ashoknagar Mandya 571 401 By Shri. Prasanna Kumar S.Y. Adv. Versus G. Leela W o K.N.Krishna Murthy Aged about 63 years R at No.2357 2 Cross Gandhinagar Mandya By Shri. K.V.Narasimhan Adv. BY SRI.RAVI SHANKAR JUDICIAL MEMBER The Opposite Parties in C.C.No.680 2015 preferred this appeal against the order dated:28.09.2017 passed by the Mandya District Consumer Commission which directed them to pay an amount of Rs.2 50 000 along with interest @ 10% p.a. from 23.05.2005 till realization along with compensation of Rs.5 000 and cost of Rs.2 000 . The brief facts of the complaint is that: The complainant had paid Rs.2 50 000 towards allotment of the site from Opposite Parties’ Society. After payment of the said amount the Opposite Parties have not given a site for which she demanded for refund of the amount paid towards allotment of the site. But the OPs for one or other reason have dragged to refund the said amount. Hence she approached the District Commission at Mandya alleging deficiency in service. After filing the complaint the Opposite Parties appeared before the District Commission and denied all the averments made in the complaint. After trial the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.2 50 000 with interest along with cost Being aggrieved by the said order the appellant is before this Commission We have heard the arguments from both sides On going through the memorandum of appeal certified copy of the impugned order and documents produced before the District Commission we noticed that the complainant alleged that she paid an amount of Rs.2 50 000 towards allotment of the site to Opposite Parties and before the District Commission she produced one pass book to show that they have endorsed for receipt of the said amount. But she has not produced the original receipt before the District Commission. On the other hand there is entry in the Passbook that she has paid an amount of Rs.2 50 000 and it reflects that receipt number as 11000 whereas when we perused the original receipt number 3 11000 it stands in the name of one Manohara which was issued by the OP No.1 Society towards registration of the membership. The said receipt number mentioned in the passbook and original receipt are not tally each other. Further the learned counsel for appellant vehemently argued that the complainant was a member to the Society and as per the norms they have allotted one site by receiving consideration amount and the site was registered in her name in the year 1999 itself. There afterwards she has not entitled to get another site and also not permissible to become a member. Further argued that one of the Secretaries of the Society was misused the documents of the Society in order to gain wrongfully the passbook was concocted in her name and claimed for the said amount. In this regard they have a lodged a complaint against the said previous Secretary of the Society. The same was admitted by the complainant Of course we agree the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant. The documents clearly establish that the complainant had allotted a site and registration was executed in her favour in the year 1999 itself. The bylaw also discloses that once the site was allotted to a member the same member cannot apply for another site. Accordingly we suspect a doubt with respect to the genuinenity of the Passbook. We are of the opinion that the passbook may be created by the Ex Secretary of the Society who was under trial for misappropriation and cheating On the other hand the complainant had not produced the original document to show that she had paid an amount of Rs.2 50 000 to the Society even after registering a site in the year 1999 itself. Therefore the order passed by the District Commission lacks legality. The District Commission failed to appreciate the original receipt produced by the Respondent which stands in the name of one Manohar. As such the order requires to be set aside. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: The appeal is allowed. No costs The impugned order dated:28.09.2017 passed by the Mandya District Consumer Commission in C.C.No.680 2015 is hereby set aside. Consequently the complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Commission to disburse the same to the appellant Ops Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission Sd Sd Member. Judicial Member 4 HON BLE MR. Ravishankar HON BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi 5 