COMPLAINT FILED: 27.07.2009<br /> DISPOSED ON : 18.06.2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 18th JUNE 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1773/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri. Jayaram Naidu.V<br /> Son of late Lakshmaiah Naidu,<br /> Aged about 67 years,<br /> No.32/33, 1st Main,<br /> 8th Cross, “Anugraha Layout”,<br /> Opp: Pragathi English Medium School, Mahadevapura,<br /> Bangalore – 560 048.<br /> <br /> Advocate : K. Nrayana Swamy<br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. G. Punna Rao,<br /> Chairman & Managing <br /> Director,<br /> GPR Housing Private Ltd.,<br /> 7th Line, 2nd Cross road,<br /> Arundal pet, Guntur,<br /> Andhra Pradesh.<br /> <br /> 2. GPR Housing Private Ltd.,<br /> Center point, 301, 3rd floor,<br /> No. 56, Residency road,<br /> Bnagalore-560 025.<br /> <br /> 3. Manager,<br /> GPR Housing Private Ltd.,<br /> 7th line, 2nd cross road,<br /> Arundal pet, Guntur,<br /> Andhra Pradesh.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction against the Opposite Parties (herein after called as O.P) to execute the registered Sale deed at the agreed rate on the Scheme by OP 2 or to return the amount of Rs.91,760/- with interest at the rate of 36% P.A. from 06.02.2002 along with costs on the allegation of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> 2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows:<br /> <br /> Complainant lured away with the offer made by the OPs in the news paper who are engaged in forming of layouts and distribution of sites in their layout known as “Sun City”, near kangeri satellite Township, Bangalore. OP-2 is the private Limited Company. OP-1 being the Chairman and managing director of OP-2 and OP-3 is the Manager of OP-2. OPs introduced the Scheme known as First Super bumper draw of Sun City and collected monthly instalments from the complainant and assured the complainant that Plot will be developed as per the regulations of Kengeri CMC town planning and registered infavour of the complainant on payment of total cost. Based upon the assurance of OP complainant became its member for purchasing a Plot measuring 30 X 40 fts. and paid Rs.91,760/- to OP on different dates in 32 monthly instalments from 19.12.1998 to 06.02.2002. OP made the entries in the pass book of the complainant and issued the receipts. The copy of the pass book, receipts are produced. OP have not allotted any plot as promised and closed its branch office without any intimation to the complainant. OP-2 assured the complainant that due to some technical grounds, Sun City Layout was stopped and another layout by name Nandi enclave is introduced in the same area. The copy of proposed layout is produced by the complainant. When OP failed to allot the plot promised complainant caused Legal Notice on 03.04.2009 by RPAD notice returned unserved. OP-2 closed the office without any information or contacting numbers. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint for the necessary relief’s.<br /> <br /> 3. After registration of the complainant, notice is sent to OP-1 to 3 inspite of service of notice OP 1 and 3 remained absent. Against OP-2 complainant took notice by way of paper publication in Udayavani dated 13.02.2010. OP-1 to 3 remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. Hence OP 1 to 3 placed ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 4. To substantiate the complainant averments; complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced copy of the cash receipts, Brochure, Pass book extract, correspondence, layout map, Legal Notice, Postal Covers and acknowledgements. OPs did not participate in the proceedings. Then heard the arguments of the complainant.<br /> <br /> 5. It is contended for the complainant that the complainant was lured away with the offer made by the OPs in the news paper, who claims to be the persons engaged in forming of layouts and distribution of sites in their layout known as ‘Sun City’ near Kengeri Satellite Township. OP-2 is the private limited Company, OP-1 its Chairman and Managing director. OP-3 is the Manager of OP-2. OP’s introduced the Scheme known as First Super bumper draw of Sun City and collected monthly instalments of Rs.3000/- each from the complainant. Further OPs assured the complainant that the plot will be developed as per the regulation of Kengeri CMC, town planning and registered in favour of the complainant on payment of total cost. Believing the words of OP complainant became its member for purchasing a plot dimension of 30 X 40 fts. In all complainant paid Rs.91,760/- in 32 instalments to OP on different dates starting from 19.12.1998 to 06.02.2002. OP for having received the payments from the complainant made the entries in the pass book and also issued receipts. The copy of the pass book and Cash receipts are produced. On 05.06.1999 OP wrote a letter to complainant intimating to conduct the First Super bumper draw of Sun City shortly. The copy of the letter is produced. While receiving the instalments OP-2 has told due to same technical reasons Sun City layout of Kengeri was stopped and OP-2 has proposed another layout in the same area at Kengeri known as ‘Nandi Enclave’. The map of the proposed layouts is produced. OP’s failed to allot the Plot. OP-2 closed its office at Bangalore without giving any intimation to its members of the Scheme. The contacting numbers were not working. After several enquiries with great difficulty complainant was able to ascertain the address of OP-2 and 3. Inspite of requests when OP failed to allot the plot complainant caused the legal notice on 03.04.2009 by RPAD, calling upon the OPs to allot and register the Plot on receipt of balance amount as agreed under the Scheme or to refund the amount with interest at 36% p.a. within fifteen days. Notice returned unserved to OP 1 & 2. Inspite of service of notice there was no response from OP-3. Copies of the notice and RPAD covers are produced. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.<br /> <br /> 6. We have perused the complaint averments unchallenged affidavit evidence and documents. The documents produced by the complainant corroborates the case of the complainant. Complainant with an intention to have his own plot became the member of the Scheme launched by OP. Inspite of paying such a huge and hard earned amount of Rs.91,760/- his dream to have his own plot never fulfilled. OPs have no curtacy to intimate at least changed address to its members. OP’s have not bothered to give any information regarding the status of the project. After OPs became aware of the fact that it could not complete the project it; could have fairly refunded the amount to the complainant. Retention of amount by the OP’s without allotting the plot or refunding the same amounts to deficiency in service. OP’s have retained the amount for more than ten years with an intention to gain wrongfully so to cause wrongful loss to the complainant. For no fault of his complainant is put to mental agony and harassment. There is nothing to discord the sworn testimony of the complainant. Non appearance of the OPs leads us to draw on inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. We are satisfied that complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service in the part as of the OPs.<br /> <br /> 7. Complainant has failed to produce any documents to show that there are any plots free from encumbrances readily available at the disposal of OPs as on to day. Hence his prayer for execution of sale deed cannot be considered.<br /> <br /> 8. Under the circumstances we are of the considered view that complainant is entitled for the alternative relief of refund of amount with 12% interest p.a. and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OPs are jointly and severally liable to refund Rs.91,760/- with interest at 12% P.A. from 06.02.2002 to till the date of payment and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. <br /> <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 her verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 18th day of June 2010.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> gm.<br /> <br />