Date of Order: 04.03.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> Dated: 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <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 /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 175 OF 2008 <br /> Date of Filing:17.01.2008<br /> <br /> D. Rangaiah, <br /> 3rd Main Road, III Stage, <br /> III Block, Basaveswaranagar,<br /> Bangalore-560 079. Complainant<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 176 OF 2008 <br /> Date of Filing:17.01.2008<br /> <br /> H.M. Jayaramaiah,<br /> No.C-9/2, Phase-1, <br /> DRDO Quarters, Nagawara Palya,<br /> C.V. Raman Nagar Post,<br /> Bangalore-560 093. Complainant<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 180 OF 2008 <br /> Date of Filing:18.01.2008<br /> <br /> Smt. Kusum.H. Sanglikar,<br /> No.123, ‘Kapila’, 14th Main road,<br /> Muneswara Block, Mahalakshmipura,<br /> Bangalroe-560 086. Complainant<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> V/S<br /> H.S. Shanthakumar,<br /> G.S. Developers, No.F-2, <br /> I Floor, Ebony Building,<br /> 7/1, Hosur Road, <br /> Bangalroe-560 025. Opposite Party<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> These three complaints are clubbed together for disposal since the facts and law points involved in these three cases are one and the same and the opposite party in all the three cases is one and the same. The respective complainants have filed the complaints against the opposite party seeking refund of amount paid towards purchase of site with interest. <br /> The facts of the case are that, the opposite party in the name and style as G.S. Developers had issued advertisement for distribution of sites and also for advertisement of residential plots. On account of said advertisement the complainant in complaint No.175/2008, D. Rangaiah, complainant in complaint No.176/2008 have paid Rs.45,000/- each through cheque towards 25% of the site cost and the complainant in complaint No.180/2008 Smt. Kumum.H. Sanglikar had paid Rs.35,000/- through cheque as advance amount. The complainants have produced copy of agreement executed by the opposite party. They have also produced letters executed by the opposite party. The complainants had issued legal notice to the opposite party. The copy of notice also produced. Since the opposite party had not allotted site and sale deed is not executed as per the agreement. Therefore, the complainants were forced to file the complaints seeking relief from the hands of this Forum. <br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party through registered post. Notice returned with an endorsement as not claimed. When the matters were posted on 28/2/2008 the opposite party remained absent and they have not appeared and contested the matter. The endorsement on the notice not claimed was held sufficient service of notice and the opposite party was placed exparte.<br /> 3. The respective complainants have filed affidavit evidence. Arguments of complainants heard. <br /> <br /> 4. The points for consideration are:-<br /> 1. Whether there was a deficiency in service on the <br /> part of the opposite party? <br /> <br /> 2. Whether the complainants are entitled for refund of amount with interest? <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 5. The complainants have filed respective complaints against the opposite party for refund of the amount paid under agreement of sale. The complainants have paid amount to the opposite party towards site. The opposite party advertised that they will form layout and allot the site to the members. The opposite party has given advertisement under the name and style as G.S. Developers. The complainants have paid initial amount through cheque. The opposite party had executed agreement of sale and in the agreement of sale it is clearly stated that they have received Rs.45,000/- from the complainants D. Rangaiah and Jayaramaiah. The opposite party had received Rs.35,000/- from Smt. Kusum.H. Sanglikar. There was several correspondence between the complainants and the opposite party. In spite of correspondence the opposite party was not able to allot the site. The complainants have issued the legal notice demanding refund, but the amount was not paid. Therefore, the complainants were forced to file the complaints before this Forum. The case made out by the respective complainants have gone unchallenged. The opposite party has not appeared and contested the matter. The opposite party had not allotted the site and failed to execute the sale deed of the respective sites in favour of the complainants. Therefore, the complainants were forced to file the complaints seeking refund of the amount with interest. The Consumer Protection Act is enacted to safeguard the better interest of the consumers. The opposite party being a developer having received the amount from the respective complaints failed to honour the agreement. Therefore, the opposite party has to refund the amount with interest and costs. The complainants are justified in seeking the refund of amount with interest. Therefore, there was definitely a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. All the complaints are allowed. The complainant in complaint No.175/2008 Sri. D. Rangaiah is entitled to get refund of Rs.45,000/- each with interest at 18% p.a from 8/3/2004 till the payment/realization. The opposite party is directed to pay the respective amounts to the complainants with interest as ordered within 30 days from the date of this order. The complainant is entitled Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the present proceeding from the opposite party.<br /> <br /> 7. The original of this order shall be kept in complaint No.175/2008 and a true copy thereof shall be kept in each of the other cases. <br /> <br /> 8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> <br /> 9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2008.<br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> We concur the above finding.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br />