COMPLAINT FILED: 29.01.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 18th MARCH 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 259/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri. G. Santhosh Kumar,<br /> S/o. G.K. Gangaiah,<br /> Aged about 25 years,<br /> R/at No. 58, 2nd Cross,<br /> 12th Main Road,<br /> BSK 3rd Stage, <br /> Raghavendra Block,<br /> Srinagara,<br /> Bangalore – 560 050.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (H.P. Leeladhar)<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Karnataka State “D’ Group Employees Central Association (R),<br /> M.S. Building,<br /> Dr. Ambedkar Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 001.<br /> Rep. by its Secretary.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Karnataka State “D’ Group Employees Central Association (R),<br /> M.S. Building,<br /> Dr. Ambedkar Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 001.<br /> Rep. by its President.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (Balaraj. M.V.)<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<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 allot alternative site of a same dimension, register it and pay a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and for such other reliefs 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 /> Complainant being lured away with the advertisement and propaganda issued by the OP association, who claims to be the promoters and developers of residential sites of various dimensions in and around Bangalore so as to allot it to their members, thought of becoming member of the OP society. Actually one M. Kuthubdin was the member of the OP society having katha No. 515 since the 20.12.1985. He paid the sital value and thereafter complainant continued for the said membership in place of M. Kuthubdin by his consent. Then complainant paid the remaining sital value of Rs.60,000/- in all Rs.1,11,750/- is paid towards the cost of the site measuring 30 X 50 feet. OP having accepted the membership of the complainant, issued the possession certificate with respect to site bearing No. 1118 situated at Srigandadakaval Village and also executed the sale deed on 16.11.2002. Thereafter there aroused certain litigation, then it was detected that the site allotted to the complainant formed the part and parcel of Sy. No. 30/1, which is not approved by the BDA because the said Sy. No. is retained for park and CA sites. Under such circumstances complainant could not take the actual and physical possession of the said site. Then requested the OP to allot him an alternative site, all his efforts went in futile. 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. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version mainly contending that BDA is expected to release 55% of the total area of the land acquired for the formation of the said layout, but unfortunately BDA restricted the sanction only to 49.99% of the land acquired. Hence OP is unable to complete the said project as promised. They have also made demand to the BDA to allot sites in the bulk or approve the modified plan, but it went in vain. Then with all bonafides to accommodate the aggrieved site owners like complainant OP gave paper publication stating that they are going to allot them the alternative site in their new layout carved out of Sy. No. 53 and 54 of Belalu Village, Doddaaladamar. Complainant has not shown the interest, even till today OP is ready to provide an alternative site at Doddaaladamar Layout. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. The other allegations made by the complainant are all false and frivolous. 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 and produced the documents. 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 the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs 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 society and opted to purchase a site measuring 30 X 50 feet in a project floated by OP at Srigandadakaval Village. It is also not at dispute that complainant has paid in all Rs.1,11,750/- towards the cost of the said site and OP allotted him site No. 1118 carved out of Sy. No. 30/1. OP has executed the registered sale deed on 16.11.2002. When complainant intended to construct his house in the said site, by that time he came to know that the site allotted to him is not approved by the BDA and that Sy. No. 30/1 is intended to be retained for the park, CA site, etc. Hence he lost the opportunity to be in possession of the said site. In the meantime there aroused a litigation. The “D” Group Employees Welfare Association filed a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court, wherein OP is restrained from changing or altering the nature of land reserved for the park and CA sites.<br /> <br /> 7. It is contended by the OP that they did made representation to BDA to approve their modified and altered plan so as to facilitate them to allot a site to the members like complainant, but it was not done. The evidence of the complainant which finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents, appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant. The other relevant documents produced by the complainant goes to show that though BDA has released 1200 sites in the approved layout only 800 were allotted to the different members and other 400 sites of different size are still at the disposal of the OP. The contents of the said document is not denied by the OP. <br /> <br /> 8. Of course OP has come up with a proposal that at present they have no sites at their disposal in layout Srigandadakaval Village, but to facilitate their members they are ready to allot alternative site in their new project carved out of Sy. No. 53 and 54 of Belalu Village near Doddaaladamar for the present cost. It is not known whether the said project is duly approved by the statutory authority or not and how many sites of what dimension are carved is also not known. <br /> <br /> 9. Complainant invested his hard earned money to acquire a site of his choice, but unable to reap the fruits of his investment since a decade or so, naturally he must have suffered both mental agony and financial loss. Though complainant got the possession certificate, registered sale deed, etc., with respect to the said site, he is unable to build his own house in the said site because it is acquired by the BDA for the purpose of CA sites and park. Complainant faced such inconvenience because of the hostile attitude, carelessness and negligence on the part of the OP. We are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. As against the unimpeachable evidence of the complainant, the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake, just an eyewash. OP approach does not appears to be bonafide and reasonable.<br /> <br /> 10. Having taken note of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find in the interest of justice it is a fit case, wherein complainant deserves certain relief. If the site that is already registered the sale deed in favour of complainant is not at the disposal of the OP, they can accommodate the complainant with a site of a same dimension for the same cost in Srigandadakaval Village. For any other reason if it is not possible then complainant may opt for allotment of alternative site at Doddaaladamar Layout or seek for the refund of the sital value with interest and compensation along with litigation cost. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed. OP is directed to allot a site measuring 30 X 50 feet in Srigandadakaval Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli Layout within 3 months from the date of communication of this order. If for any reason it is not possible then allot a site of a same size for the same cost already received from the complainant at their Doddaaladamar Layout carved out of Sy. No. 53 and 54 of Belalu Village, register the site, put him in actual possession at the cost of the complainant within 6 months from this day. Failing in which OP is directed to refund the amount paid by the complainant towards the cost of the site namely Rs.1,11,750/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of sale deed (16.11.2002) till realization and also pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-.<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 /> <br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br />