9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1741X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isition, consolidation and change in land use of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural. In case she was not willing to wait she could have sought for refund at any stage. Though she became a Member of the Society in 2007 and deposited various amounts soon thereafter she filed the complaint before the District Forum only on 08.01.2014. Hence, we are of the view that having failed to claim the refund earlier she cannot now claim additional compensation. Petition dismissed. - Revision Petition No. 2912 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 5-2-2018 - Rekha Gupta, (Presiding Member) and Anup K. Thakur, Member For Appellant: Sneha R. Iyer, Advocate ORDER Rekha Gupta, (Presiding Member) 1. The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 10 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 Ke ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... related copy of documents regarding marketable title within 30 days of collecting the balance site value if any from the petitioner. To aware compensation to the petitioner to the extent of ₹ 10,00,000/- payable by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 jointly as the respondents have intentionally with mala fide intention not allotted a site and mental agony and loss to the petitioner even though substantial site value already paid by the petitioner and she was ready to pay the balance, if any; Alternatively direct the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 jointly and severally to refund the entire amount remitted by the petitioner with interest @ 18% from the date of respective payments till the date of realisation along with the above amount of compensation and costs, if the sites are not available with the respondent for allotment; and To grant any other relief as deem fit to this Forum under the circumstances of the case with costs of the proceedings and pass such other order in the interest of justice and equity. 3. On issuance of the notice, advocate for the respondents appeared and filed their version. The respondents admitted that, the petitioner had applied for allotmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect of grant of interest at 15% per annum from the date of respective deposits even though there was no any willful default on their behalf. Accordingly, the appellants have also deposited ₹ 7,22,020/- before this Commission. 9. On perusal of the records, placed before us, the respondent/complainant has not placed any records to indicate that the appellants were liable to pay interest on the deposits from the date of respective deposits in case if they were unable to procure land for formation of layout. In the essence of it, it would be just and proper to modify the impugned order with regard to the date from which interest has to be paid by the appellants. 10. After hearing either side, the impugned order is liable to be modified regarding duration of the interest as ordered by the District Forum in the best interest of both the parties. Hence, the following order is passed: The above appeal is hereby allowed partly and the order passed by the District Forum is hereby modified accordingly. The OPs are directed to refund the sum of ₹ 7,22,020/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of reali ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e steps within its power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention. [Advanced Law Lexicon, P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3 Edition, 2005] . 11. In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed; It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S. 5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after suffic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
