O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:<br /> <br /> These are the complaints filed by the complainants against the same Op with similar allegations and for similar reliefs are therefore taken up for disposal by a common order to avoid repetition and facts.<br /> <br /> The complaints in these 3 complaints are herein after referred to as complaint No.1, 2 and 3 depending upon their chronological complaint numbers.<br /> <br /> The brief facts of the complaints filed by these complainants are that they were looking for purchasing residential sites, came across the advertisement issued by the Ops offering to develop residential layout at Bidadi in the proposed layout called ‘New County’. That the first complainant applied for purchase a plot bearing No.384 @ Rs.660/- per sq. ft, at a total cost of Rs.7,92,000/- and paid Rs.2,64,000/- as advance payment towards site No.384. Whereas the second complainant agreed to purchase three sites No.382 to 384 at the same rate as said above measuring 30’ X 40’ and paid Rs.2,64,000/- as advance payment towards site No.382, Rs.2,24,000/- towards site No.383 and Rs.92,000/- towards site No.384 and in all Rs.5,28,000/-. The 3rd complainant agreed to purchase two sites bearing No.381 and 394 each measuring 30’ X 40’ at the same rate and paid a total sum of Rs.5,94,000/- in all. Then the first Op executed an agreement in favour of each of them agreeing to sell those sites after receipt of the balance sale consideration with a further stipulation that the balance sale consideration was required to be paid within one month from the date, the Opponents obtain approval by the concerned authority for the formation of residential site. The complainants have further contended that they approached the Ops several times and made enquiries with them with regard to approval, they were required to obtain and to know the progress in formation of the layout but the Ops on one or the other false ground were giving evasive replies and were avoiding them. They visited spot of the proposed layout and saw nothing had been done in the formation of layout and therefore they doubting the implementation of the projects, requested the Ops to either allot sites or to refund their money with interest. Even after the issue of legal notices, Ops have not responded to their call and thereby attributing deficiency to the Ops have prayed for a direction to the Ops to refund their money with interest @ 18% p.a and also to award compensation with costs.<br /> <br /> 2. Ops have appeared through their advocate and filed similar version in all these three cases. Ops without disputing the complainants contention of their request for allotment of sites, payment of advance money have contended to had informed the complainants regarding ban imposed by BMRDA for approval of plan, for conversional of lands at Magadi, Nelamangala, Kanakapura Taluks including Bidadi in Ramangaram District and other places from July 2006 and because of which they were not able to get any conversion or plan from the concerned authority. It is further stated that land lock was for one year only but it was extended from time to time and the Government has now unlocked the ban as appeared in the news paper and therefore, they are now in the process for applying for conversion and approval of layout and stated that delay is not intentional and it is further stated as they do not want to loose the customers they are ready to give alternative site in the layout formed by them called as M/s. ROYAL ORCHIDS, situated at Dhanagahalli Village, Mysore Taluk and thus denying any deficiency have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaints, the complainants and one V.Bhaskar Reddy, a Partner of Ops have filed their affidavit evidence re-producing what they have stated in their respective complaints and version. Complainants along with complaints have produced copies of brochures and then receipts for having paid advance sital value, statement of accounts and the agreements with the Ops entered into with them for sale of sites, with copies of legal notices they got issued. Ops have produced a Xerox-copy of a daily news paper to show as if the Government has unlocked the conversion for converting lands to non-agricultural purpose. We have heard the counsel for both parties and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainants proves that the Ops have caused deficiency in their service in not keeping up their promise in providing sites or in refunding their advance sital value paid?<br /> 2. To what relief the complainants are entitled to?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are as under<br /> <br /> Point No.1 : In the affirmative<br /> Point No.2 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS:<br /> <br /> 6. Answer on point No.1: As narrated above in brief, the Ops have not denied receipt of the payments from these complainants as detailed in the complaints towards advance cost of the site, Ops promised to allot sites and entered into agreements with these complainants for sale of the proposed sites. On perusal of the contents of the agreements, the Ops have categorically admitted receipt of advance monies from the complainants agreeing to receive the balance sale consideration within one month from the date of approval and then after formation of layout agreed to execute sale deeds. The agreements were executed on 02/04/2008. The Opponents in their version and also in the affidavit evidence without disputing these material facts have set up a defence contending that BMRDA imposed ban on conversion of lands and sanction of layout plans of the lands around Bidadi Ramangaram, Kanakapura, Doddaballour etc., and because of that there was delay in completing the project and therefore have pleaded their inability in completing the project. The Ops though have produced a Xerox copy of news paper cutting but it is not clear from it, the total duration for which ban was imposed. When the Ops were aware of the uncertainty in the formation of layout as to why they did not choose to refund the monies of the complainants when they opted to get away from the scheme. <br /> <br /> 7. The counsel for the complainant has filed memo with the letter of Ops dated 15/03/2010 in which Ops have stated as if the ban is now lifted by the Government of Karnataka, that they have started the process of obtaining a requisite sanction and approvals for completion of the layout and that shall be ready by the end of August 2010 and thereafter they start the process of registration. The counsel for the complainants further submitted even after the Ops letter dated 15/03/2010, Ops have not made any progress in the formation of layout and that all the premises of the Ops remained premises for ever and are not materialized. This argument of the counsel of the complainants has not been rebutted by the Ops. Thus it remains that the Ops even till date are not able to show any progress in the formation of layout and their preparedness to allot sites. The Ops in their version have offered to provide alternative sites at a Village near Mysore Taluk, Mysore District. Complainants are not agreeable for such alternative sites. Complainants in our view have rightly declined to accept the alternative sites, because they had agreed to purchase sites near Bidadi in Ramangaram Taluk and paid money towards purchase of those sites, therefore, they cannot be compelled to accept alternative sites at Mysore Taluk. Under these circumstances, we find that the Ops after accepting considerable high advances in the year 2008 have not shown their earnestness in forming layout and to provide relief to the complainants. The Ops even after receipt of the legal notices kept quite by not refunding the complainants money. As such we cannot find fault with the complainants in asking for refund of their money. Considering the land value in the year 2008 and escalated cost of lands in the year 2010 and decline in the money value, we propose to award interest on the advance money paid by the complainants. With the result, we hold that the Ops are deficient in their service and are liable to refund the complainants money with interest. As the result, we answer point No.1 in the affirmative and pass the following order.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaints are allowed.<br /> <br /> Ops are held jointly and severally liable to refund the complainants money and therefore are directed to refund Rs.2,64,000/- to the first complainant, Rs.5,28,000/- to the second complainant and Rs.5,94,000/- to the third complainant with interest @ 18% p.a from the date of respective payment till the date of payment.<br /> <br /> Ops shall also pay cost of Rs.2,000/- each to each of these complainants.<br /> <br /> The original order shall be kept in complaint No:720/2010 and the copies of the same shall be kept in the remaining complaints. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the Open forum on this the 8th October 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER PRESIDENT<br />