Date of Filing: 13.08.2009 Date of Order: 31.10.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated: 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2009<br /> PRESENT<br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1961 OF 2009<br /> <br /> B.R. Maruthi<br /> S/o. Late T.H. Ramiah<br /> No. 8/1, Behind LIC Colony<br /> West of Chord Road<br /> Basaveshwaranagara<br /> Bangalore 560 079 Complainant<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1962 OF 2009<br /> <br /> B. R. Kanteerava<br /> No. 15/30, 10th Main<br /> Shivanagar, Rahahinagar<br /> Bangalore Complainant<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1963 OF 2009<br /> <br /> S. R. Shanthaiah<br /> S/o. S.K. Rudraiah<br /> No. 136, Chikkanayakanahalli Post<br /> Tumkur District Complainant<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1964 OF 2009<br /> <br /> K. Ramamurthy<br /> No. 8/1, Behind LIC Colony<br /> West of Chord Road<br /> Basaveshwaranagara<br /> Bangalore 560 079 Complainant<br /> V/S<br /> <br /> Country Club (India) Limited<br /> No. 675, 9th ‘A’ Main<br /> Indiranagar, 1st Stage<br /> Bangalore 560 038<br /> Rep. by its Managing Director /<br /> Authorised person Opposite Party<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1983 OF 2009<br /> DOF: 17.08.2009<br /> <br /> Landa Srinivasa Rao<br /> S/o. Landa Gurumurthy<br /> R/at No. 5/11, 13th Cross<br /> Traffic Colony, Maruthi Nagar<br /> Madivala, Bangalore 560068 Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> 1. Country Club (India) Limited<br /> No. 675, 9th ‘A’ Main<br /> Indiranagar, 1st Stage<br /> Bangalore 560 038<br /> Rep. by its Manager<br /> <br /> 2. M/s. Amruth Estates<br /> No. 478, “Mahapadma”, 1st Main<br /> Indiranagar 1st Stage<br /> Bangalore 560 038<br /> Rep. by its Manager Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> These five complaints are clubbed together for passing common order since the opposite party in all the cases is one and the same and question of facts and law in all these 5 complaints are one and the same. <br /> The respective complainants have filed complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act stating that opposite party offered membership to there club and also offered a site free of cost. The respective complainants have paid amounts to the opposite party as per the offer hoping that they may get free sites as per the commitment made by the opposite party. It is the case of the complainants that the opposite party failed to allot the site and get it registered in favour of the complainants inspite of receipt of the amount. Therefore, it is clear that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Complainants have stated that opposite party caused mental and physical agony to the complainants besides loss of money and valuable time. Therefore, the complainants have prayed that opposite party be directed to refund the amount with interest. <br /> 2. After admitting the complaint notice was issued to opposite party through registered post. Opposite party appeared through advocate and defence version filed admitting that opposite party is a registered company under Indian Companies Act. The complainants have expressed their willingness to become member of the opposite party. Opposite party admitted that complainants have paid amount for the membership and availed benefits from the opposite party. The opposite party also admitted the fact that it has offered a site to the complainants under the scheme. The opposite party submitted that they are even now ready to register site in the name of complainants if the complainants pay registration and stamp charges.<br /> 3. Arguments are heard.<br /> 4. The points for consideration are:<br /> 1. Whether the respective complainants are entitled for refund of amount with interest?<br /> 2. Whether the complainants have proved deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?<br /> 5. I have gone through the complaint allegations, documents and also defence version.<br /> 6. As per the defence version there is no dispute whatsoever regarding payments made by the respective complainants towards membership. There is also no dispute that opposite party has offered free sites to the respective complainants. It is also not in dispute that opposite party has not executed sale deed in favour of the complainants as per the offer. The opposite party submitted that even now it is ready to register the sites in the name of respective complainants. But the opposite party has not come forward with clear case of availability of sites and layout formation etc. The opposite party has not produced any documents to show that layout has been formed and sites are available for registration and allotment. Therefore, in the absence of any documentary proof that sites are available with the opposite party, mere taking defence in the defence version will not serve any purpose. Therefore, from the facts of the case it is clear that opposite party has committed deficiency in service. The opposite party has not kept up its promise in allotting free sites to the respective complainants. Therefore, the request of the complainant for refund of the amount paid by them with interest is quite fair, just and reasonable. The complainants’ advocate submitted that interest at 18% p.a. be granted on the amount. The learned advocate submitted that 4th Additional District Forum had awarded 18% interest p.a. in similar nature of cases. The complainants have produced judgments of 4th Additional District Forum rendered on 22.12.2008. The judgement of 4th Additional District Forum has no binding effect on this forum. The complainants have not produced judgement of State Commission or National Commission to show that in the nature of present cases 18% interest p.a. has been granted. So under these circumstances grant of 18% interest p.a. in these cases would be unfair and unjust because now a days interest rates have been reduced considerably as per the directions of RBI. The National Banks have reduced rate of interest on the fixed deposits. This forum is awarding 12% interest p.a. in similar nature of cases. The judgement of 2008 of 4th Additional District Forum may not be binding and under the present facts and circumstances and prevailing rate of interest grant of interest at 12% p.a. on the refund amount would be just, fair and reasonable. I feel this relief will meet ends of justice. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> 7. All the 5 complaints are allowed. The complainant in complaint No. 1961/2009 Sri B.R. Maruthi is entitled for refund of Rs. 1,15,000/-.<br /> 8. The complainant in complaint No. 1962/2009 Sri B.R. Kanteerava is entitled for refund of Rs. 1,15,000/-.<br /> 9. The complainant in complaint No. 1963/2009 Sri S.R. Shanthaiah is entitled for refund of Rs. 1,15,000/-.<br /> 10. The complainant in complaint No. 1964/2009 Sri K. Ramamurthy is entitled for refund of Rs. 1,15,000/-.<br /> 11. The complainant in complaint No. 1983/2009 Sri Landa Srinivasa Rao is entitled for refund of Rs. 2,50,000/-.<br /> 12. The respective complainants are entitled for interest at 12% p.a. on the refund amount from the date of respective payments made to the opposite party till payment / realisation.<br /> 13. The complainants are also entitled for Rs. 1,000/- each as costs of the present proceedings from the opposite party.<br /> 14. Keep the copy of the order in connected case files. <br /> 15. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 16. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br />