<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 27.08.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 04th 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.1892/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.Ravindra Ritti,Principal,Government Pre-University College, Hebbsur, Hubli (Tq)Dharwad (Dist.)Advocate – Sri.S.B.ChanalV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Sri.C.P.Yogeshwara,Managing Director,Mega City (Bangalore)Developer and Builders Ltd.,Megatower, No.120K.H.Road (Double Road)Bangalore – 560 027.Advocate – Sri.R.Tharesha<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 register a site or in default pay a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- 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 being lured away with the advertisement and propaganda issued by the OP who claims to be the developer and promoter of the residential layouts consisting of sites of various dimensions in and around Bangalore thought of purchasing a site measuring 30’ x 40’ in Vajragiri Project floated by the OP. OP accepted the complainant membership and allotted him No.684 on 07.03.2001. OP promised to sell the site for a total cost of Rs.48,240/-. Complainant did pay the same in time along with the betterment charges of Rs.6,000/-. Though OP allotted the site No.313 in ‘D’ block but later on failed to register the same in time. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant went in futile. OP went on giving lame excuses and protracted the registration of the site to suit his convenience. Being fed up with the hostile attitude of the OP, complainant issued the legal notice. Again there was no response. Thus complainant for no fault of his is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. He felt deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part 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 site No.313 in ‘D’ Block is carved out of survey No.77/14+11 but the owner of the said land later on raised the civil litigation. O.S No.726/2007 is filed by the OP. It is pending for adjudication. In addition to that the lands acquired by the OP were agricultural lands. That is why OP sought for the permission for the conversion of the said land to non agricultural purpose. The concerned revenue department and the Deputy Commissioner failed to accord the sanction. Over and above this the lands acquired by the OP were taken away by BMICAPA. The Nice Company has also intervened. Under such circumstances OP is unable to complete the said project. Though OP offered the complainant to take back their amount with the Bank interest complainant didn’t heed to the said offer. Under such circumstances neither there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP nor an unfair trade practice as alleged. Complaint is devoid of merits. 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 /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <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 become the member of the OP Vajragiri project and opted to purchase a site measuring 30’ x 40’. It is also not at dispute that complainant has paid the sital value of Rs.48,240/- and betterment charges of Rs.6,000/-. Now the grievance of the complainant is that though OP allotted him site No.313 in ‘D’ Block of Vajragiri Township but failed to register the same in time. Thus complainant felt deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 7. As against this it is contended by the OP that the said site No.313 is carved out of survey No.77/14+11 of Seshagirihalli Village. Later on the Landlord of the said land sold the said property to the third party. Under such circumstances OP is forced to approach Ramanagara Civil Judge court by filing O.S No.726/2007 and that suit is still pending. This fact is not denied by the complainant. It is further contended by the OP that the lands purchased by the them from the land owners are agricultural lands. They sought for the conversion of the said lands by approaching the revenue departments and the concerned Deputy Commissioner. Unfortunately revenue department failed to accord the sanction.<br /> <br /> 8. It is further contended by the OP that the said lands were taken over by BMICAPA. Under such circumstances they unable to complete the said project as promised. Though OP is ready to return whatever the sital value that is paid along with Bank rate of interest complainant failed to accept the same. Because of the legal hurdles, acquisition proceedings OP is unable to complete the project.<br /> <br /> 9. The fact that OP received the entire sital value and failed to register the same since last 6 – 7 years speaks loudly about the deficiency in service. Though complainant invested his hard earned money he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of the hostile attitude of the OP. If O.P is really honest in returning the site value it would have made an effort to issue the notice and send the cheque along with interest to the complainant to show their bonafides, but no such steps are taken. Under such circumstances that defence of the OP appears to be defence for defence sake, just to save their skin out of sin.<br /> <br /> 10. In view of the elaborate discussions made by us in the above said paras, as it is there is no proof that site No.313 is free from encumbrances and litigation. Complainant has not produced any other piece of document to show that some other sites in the approved layout formed by the OP are available at the disposal of the OP. Under such circumstances complainant is not entitled for issuance of directions to OP to register the site. In our view justice will be met by directing the OP to refund the sital value paid by the complainant with interest and pay some compensation towards mental agony along with litigation cost. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 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.54,240/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from August 2002 till realization and pay a compensation of Rs.55,000/- as a guidance value of the site along with the litigation cost of Rs.500/-. 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 04th day of October 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />