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.”
Click Here to Read the Judgement
Judgement Reviewed by Vagisha Sagar
