<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 28.08.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 15th OCTOBER 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1896/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.M.Jayaram,S/o Late M.L.Muniyappa,Aged about 43 years,R/at No.789, 9th ‘A’ Main,R.P.C Layout (Hampinagar)Bangalore – 560 040.Advocate – Sri.K.VishwanathV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Amarajyothi House Building Co-operative Society Ltd.,No.40, M.N.K Rao Road,Basavanagudi,Bangalore – 560 004. Represented by its Secretary.Advocate – Sri.G.Seshadri<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to execute a registered sale deed in his favour with respect to a site measuring 30’ x 40’ and refund Rs.63,342/- with interest along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant become the member of the OP house building co-operative society in the year 1985 with a fond hope of purchasing a site in the layout to be formed by the OP in and around Bangalore that too at Banashankari 3rd Stage. Complainant opted to purchase a site measuring 30’ x 40’. OP floated the scheme in the name and style “Gruhalakshmi” and collected the total sital value of Rs.63,842-50 from 1985 to 1991. Though complainant waited patiently for the allotment and registration of the site, it went in vain. His repeated requests and demands made to OP went in futile. That is why he wrote a letter on 03.03.2008, again there was no response. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of his he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Though he invested his hard earned money he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of the hostile attitude of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP they did acquire the required quantity of land for the formation of the said layout and paid a lump sum to the land owners. Thereafter some how the land owners transferred the said lands to some third party. In addition to that litigation cropped in acquisition proceedings were challenged and the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka quashed the entire acquisition proceedings. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dismissed appeal confirming the orders of the Hon’ble High Court. The lands were again vested with the land owners. The money paid by the OP to the land owners is also struck. Under such circumstances OP is unable to complete the project in time. OP society being non profit making institution hence it is not liable to pay the interest. When OP has not completed the said project, it is not in a position to register the site as prayed by the complainant. At the most it can refund the sital value with 6% interest. The other allegations of the complainant are baseless. Because of the legal hurdles OP is unable to complete the project hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant has become the member of the OP house building co-operative society in the year 1985 and opted to purchase a site measuring 30’ x 40’ in the layout to be formed by the OP at Banashankari 3rd Stage Bangalore in the name and style “Gruhalakshmi”. It is also not at dispute that right from 1985 up to 1991 complainant went on paying the sital value of Rs.48,342-50 and other developmental miscellaneous charges of Rs.15,000/-. According to the complainant in all he has paid Rs.63,842-50. As per the documents produced by the complainant it appears complainant has paid Rs.63,342-50.<br /> <br /> 7. On the perusal of the version of the OP, OP has not denied the fact of receipt of said amount but it disputed the correctness of the amount. We don’t find force in the said defence. As already observed by us complainant has produced the receipt to corroborate his say with regard to the payment. Of course OP has come up with the defence that because of the legal hurdles they are unable to complete the said project. Complainant has not disputed the various legal proceedings and the orders passed by the Apex court. When that is so, it appears OP hands are tied in completing the said project because of the legal proceedings.<br /> <br /> 8. When OP is aware of the fact that they are not going to complete the said project in time, it would have been more fair on the part of the OP to refund the sital value to the complainant but he failed to do so. Having retained the said huge amount for all these two decades OP accrued the wrongful gain to self thereby caused wrongful loss to the complainant that too for no fault of his. Complainant invested his hard earned money to purchase a site unfortunately he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of the hostile attitude of the OP. Under such circumstances complainant must have naturally suffered both mental agony and financial loss.<br /> <br /> 9. Of course complainant has not produced any piece of document to show that OP completed the project and some vacant sites free from encumbrances are available at the disposal of the OP in the said layout which is duly approved by the statutory authorities. In absence of such basic proof the claim of the complainant for issuance of a directions to OP to register a site measuring 30’ x 40’ rather can’t be considered. Having taken note of the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view justice will be met by directing the OP to refund the said sital value with interest and pay some nominal compensation along with litigation cost. With these reasons we answer point Nos.1 & 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.63,342/- together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a from November 1991 till realization and pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.<br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 15th day of October 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />