<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 28.01.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 18th MARCH 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.244/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.N.Sridhar & Sons,Represented by the Kartha of HUF Sri.N.Sridhar,Aged about 49 years,Residing at No.18,“Maruthi Bharath”Maruthi Street, Subbaianapalya,Bengaluru – 560 033.Advocate – Sri.K.R.BharadwajV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY M/s.Happy Homes Constructions Pvt. Limited,Unit No.313, Royal Corner Building,Next to Shivaji Rao Blood Bank,Lalbagh Road,Bengaluru – 560 027.Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director,MR.N.Manohar Reddy.Advocate – Sri.V.Srinivasan<br /> <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 schedule property in his favour and pay some compensation. <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 promoters and developers of the residential layouts consisting of sites of various dimensions in and around Bangalore thought of purchasing a plot in the project floated by the OP in the name and style “Wonder Woods Layout”. OP accepted the membership and allotted him No.452. An agreement came to be executed on 09.10.1998 plot No.78 was allotted measuring about 4000 Sq. feet. The total price fixed for the plot was Rs.99,000/-. Complainant made payment of entire amount by 30.09.2002. OP acknowledged the receipt of the same. Thereafter some how in spite of the repeated requests and demands made by the complainant even by causing the legal notice on 19.11.2008 there was no response. 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. Under such circumstances complainant felt deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence 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 complaint is barred by time. The last payment is made in the year 2002 and this present complaint is filed in the year 2009. It is further contended though OP is ready to register the said plot, complainant failed to respond in time in spite of sufficient and reasonable opportunity being given. Complainant himself is a defaulter. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances present 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 /> 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 became the member of the project floated by the OP in the name and style “Wonder Woods Layout”. OP executed an agreement to sell a plot measuring 4000 Sq. feet having No.78 on 09.10.1998. Copy of the agreement is produced. It is also not at dispute that the total price fixed was Rs.99,000/- and complainant made payment of the said amount by the end of 30.09.2002. Pass book issued by the OP, entry made therein, having received the installments in time is produced.<br /> <br /> 7. Now it is the grievance of the complainant that though he made the payment of the entire cost in 2002 in spite of his repeated requests and demands OP failed to register a plot in his favour. Hence he got issued the legal notice on 19.11.2008. Copy of the legal notice is produced including the brochures, receipts, correspondence made therein, application form etc. The evidence of the complainant finds full corroboration with the contents of undisputed documents it appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony.<br /> <br /> 8. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake it wants to breath hot and cold to the reasons best known. At one breath it says that it has not received the price, in another breath it says it has issued the receipt for having acknowledged the payment. Such kind of attitude of the OP is unfair and unjust. Though complainant invested his hard earned money to purchase the plot by the end of September 2002, so far so good he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of the hostile attitude of the OP. OP having retained the said huge amount for all these years accrued the wrongful gain to self thereby caused wrongful loss to the complainant that too for no fault of his.<br /> <br /> 9. OP has come with the strange defence that the complaint is barred by time. Last payment made in the year 2002 complaint ought to have filed within 2004. We don’t find force in the said defence. Once when OP has admitted the membership of the complainant and collected the charges of the plot to be registered in favour of the complainant till it is done complainant will get the recurring cause of action. The other defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake. No where OP has contended that the said project is not completed and the so called plot or the plot number which is allotted to the complainant is already sold to the third party and it is not at their disposal. In absence of such specific defence on the part of the OP we have no other go but to believe the say of the complainant in toto.<br /> <br /> 10. We have also gone through the application form and the terms and conditions incorporated therein. We have perused the correspondence and the agreement there appears to be a breach committed by the OP. Complainant is able to establish the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence he is entitled for the relief claimed. 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 register the plot No.78 in their project “Wonder Woods Layout” in favour of the complainant towards the cost already received within three months from the date of communication of this order. Complainant is directed to bear registration, stamp duty expenses and other miscellaneous charges. OP is directed to put the complainant in actual and physical possession of the plot. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<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 18th day of March 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />