Date of Filing: 18/06/2011, 22.06.2011.
Date of Order: 05.08.2011
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 20
Dated: 5th DAY OF AUGUST 2011
PRESENT
SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT
SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.1110 OF 2011
(1) Smt. Sonia Thamby,
W/o. Thamby Alappat,
Aged About 35 years,
R/at: No.104, 3rd Cross,
Officers Model, HSG Colony,
T. Dasarahalli,
BANGALORE-560 057.
COMPLAINT NO.1111 OF 2011
(2) Smt. Lizy Raphel,
W/o. Mr. Raphel,
Aged About 48 years,
R/at: Flat No.104,
Officers Model HSG Colony,
T. Dasarahalli,
BANGALORE-560 057.
COMPLAINT NO.1112 OF 2011
(3) Sri. Baby Alappat,
S/o. Mr. A.D. Devassy,
Aged About 51 years,
R/at: No.104, 3rd Cross,
Officers Model, HSG Colony,
T. Dasarahalli,
BANGALORE-560 057.
COMPLAINT NO.1139 OF 2011
(4) Smt. Wilma Andrade,
W/o. Stany Andrade,
Aged About 40 years,
R/at: No.186/187, 2nd Cross,
Officers Model Housing Colony,
T. Dasarahalli,
BANGALORE-560 057.
COMPLAINT NO.1140 OF 2011
(5) Smt. Janet Noronha,
W/o. Valerian Noronha,
Aged About 43 years,
R/at: Modabettu Post,
Shankerpura, UDUPI.
COMPLAINT NO.1141 OF 2011
(6) Smt. Jyothi Madtha,
W/o. Manuel, Aged About 36 years,
R/at: No.186, 2nd Cross, Officers
Model Housing Colony, T.Dasarahalli,
BANGALORE-560 057.
(Complainant Nos. 1 to 6 are
Rep by Advocate Sri. M.Mohan Rao) ……Complainants.
-V/s-
1) Karnataka Legislative Council Secretariat
Employees Welfare Forum (R),
No.2, 2nd Floor, 4th Main Road,
Nehrunagar, Seshadripuram,
Bangalore-560 020.
Rep. by its President Sri. K. Maharajan.
2) Mr. Maharajan, President,
Karnataka Legislative Council Secretariat
Employees Welfare Forum (R),
No.2, 2nd Floor, 4th Main Road,
Nehrunagar, Seshadripuram,
Bangalore-560 020.
3) Sree Venkateshwara Estates & Builders,
No.2, 2nd Floor, 4th Main Road,
Nehrunagar, Seshadripuram,
Bangalore-560 020.
Rep. by its Proprietor
Mr. K.V. Venkatesh.
4) Mr. K.V. Venaktesh,
Sree Venkateshwara Estates & Builders,
No.2, 2nd Floor, 4th Main Road,
Nehrunagar, Seshadripuram,
Bangalore-560 020.
(Absent though served) …….. Opposite parties.
BY SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRARAO, PRESIDENT
-: COMMON ORDER:-
Since all these matters are between different complainants and the same opposite parties regarding same matter all these complaints are taken up together for this Order and Common Order is passed and in each case one set of the order is kept. Herein afterwards, the complainant in Complaint No.1110/2011 will be referred to as Complainant No.1, the complainant in Complaint No.1111/2011 will be referred to as complainant No.2, the complainant in Complaint No.1112/2011 will be referred to as complainant No.3, the complainant in Complaint No.1139/2011 will be referred to as complainant No.4, the complainant in Complaint No.1140/2011 will be referred to as complainant No.5, the complainant in Complaint No.1141/2011 will be referred to as complainant No.6 and the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 will be referred to as opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 respectively.
2. The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the complaints U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.8,38,819/- each in Complaint Nos. 1110, 1111 and 1112 of 2011 to each of the complainants and to pay a sum of Rs.11,13,532/- each in Complaint Nos.1139, 1140, 1141 of 2011 to each of the complainants, are necessary:-
The opposite parties have advertised with respect to the sites proposed to be formed by them at “Vayuja Council Gardens” situated at Hoovinayakanahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore Rural District at the rate of Rs.450/- per square feet. The complainants approached the opposite parties in this regard as they wanted sites measuring 30 x 40 feet to the complainants Nos. 1 to 3 and 30 x 50 feet to the complainants Nos. 4 to 6 respectively. Accordingly, the complainant Nos. 1 to 3 paid Rs.1,35,000/- in all each to the opposite parties 12.01.2007, complainant Nos. 4 & 5 paid Rs.1,69,000/- in all each to the opposite parties on 13.01.2007 and complainant No.6 paid Rs.1,86,000/- on 13.01.2007 respectively. The opposite parties entered into an agreement with the complainant No.1 on 19.01.2007, complainant No.2 on 17.01.2007, complainant No.3 on 19.01.2007, and complainant Nos. 4 to 6 on 02.12.2008. Thereafter complainant Nos. 1 to 3 each have paid Rs.4,05,000/- each on different dated to the opposite parties and complainant Nos. 4 to 6 have paid Rs.5,06,250/- on different dates. The complainants requested and persuaded the opposite parties on several occasions to conduct customer meet in proper place to furnish the details of development with documents regarding allotment of sites. Though promised, they did not do it. These complainants have lost their faith in the opposite parties. But the opposite parties have failed to allot the sites on the ground that the sites have been notified for acquisition, wanted to allot different sites at different places which are not acceptable by the complainant. The opposite parties agreed to refund the money but they have not done so. Hence the complainants are entitled to the amounts paid by each of them and also interest at the rate of 18% per annum till the date of complaint and for mental agony. Hence the complaint.
3. In this case during the course of the proceedings the complainants have filed Memos seeking deletion of opposite party Nos. 5 and 6. Accordingly, they were deleted.
4. In this case the notices were sent to the Opposite party Nos. 1 to 4. The said notices were returned with Shara “not claimed” as such the service is held sufficient. The opposite parity Nos. 1 to 4 remained absent throughout the proceedings.
5. The complainants filed Memos stating that the complaints and documents be read as his evidence. Hence the matter is heard.
6. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
:- POINTS:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by the opposite parties?
- What Order?
7. Our findings are:-
Point (A) : In the Positive
Point (B) : As per detailed order
for the following:-
-:REASONS:-
Point A & B:-
8. Reading the complaint in conjunction with the documents on record it is established that the first opposite party is the registered society formed for the welfare of the members and the other opposite parties are its office bearers. The first opposite party acquires lands, forms layouts through the other opposite parties and give it to the members at certain rate. It is also established that the members of the opposite party i.e., the complainant Nos. 1 to 3 have paid Rs.4,05,000/- each and the other complainants have paid Rs.5,06,250/- each towards the value of the sites measuring 30 x 40 feet and 30 x 50 feet respectively. The opposite parties have collected the said amounts in 2007 and keeping it with them. The opposite parties have not formed the layouts nor registered or delivered the sites in the names of the complainants till date.
9. According to the complainants the opposite parties have stated that they are unable to form the layouts at present, because the said lands are proposed to be acquired and they are prepared to allot sites in different places which the complainants have not accepted. The opposite parties have kept the money of the complainants since four years without doing anything. Hence under these circumstances the complainants are entitled to refund of the amount with interest and cost of the litigation.
10. In a similar matter with respect to the same opposite parties by different complainants in Complaint Nos. 764/2011, 765/2011, 766/2011 and 767/2011 this Forum has passed an order on 07.06.2011. At Para-7 to 12 this Forum has passed the following order:-
7. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record, it is an admitted fact that the 1st Opposite Party is a registered society formed for the welfare of its members. It acquires lands forms layout through the 2nd Opposite Party and give it to its members at the rate of Rs.450/- per sq.ft. It is also an admitted fact that the Complainants are the members of the 1st Opposite Party. The Complainants 1, 3 and 4 had paid Rs.4,05,000/- in all and the 2nd Complainant had paid Rs.3,05,000/- in the year 2007. Agreements had entered into between the parties. It is also an admitted fact that the Opposite Parties neither formed the layout, nor allotted any site in favour of the Complainants or anybody. Taking money from the others on the ground of forming layout, allotting site and registering sites and using it for their purpose without complying with the promise is nothing but an unfair trade practice and also deficiency in service.
8. It is contended that the 1st Opposite Party is a society, and the 2nd Opposite Party is a developer, hence, they are not coming within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This is an untenable contention. The Opposite Parties received the money from the Complainants on the ground of developing the residential sites and allotting it to the Complainants. The object of the society may be anything, but here as a consumer, the Complainants have invested their money with the Opposite Parties who receives it the promise of the Opposite Parties have to form the layout and allot it, but that has not been done. Hence, this contention is an untenable contention.
9. The Opposite Parties have contended that the land which they had purchased in survey No.176 of Hoovinayakanahalli, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, was acquired by the KIADB, as such they have incurred losses, they have purchased another land in Marenahalli and they are ready to allot sites. There is no document for these allegation. The Opposite Parties never stated on what date they had purchased the survey No.176? when it was acquired by the Government? when they have purchased the sites at Marenahalli? which is that survey number? when they have got it converted? when the sites are ready? to whom they have allotted? etc., Except the self serving bald the statement of the Opposite Parties in this regard, there is no other material is there to believe it.
10. In any event, if the Opposite Parties contentions that they had incurred loss are taken for arguments sake even then they have other land, they have other sites, there are purchasers they can sell and repay the money to the Complainants. They cannot say that the Complainants have to wait 6 months after giving letter to pay the money. The Complainants had written to the Opposite Party on 9.11.2010 demanding their money back with interest. It has been sent to the Opposite Parties by the RPAD and certificate of posting. The Opposite Parties never produced their from and to register to show that these letters were not received by them and hence, there is no entry in their from and to register. Hence, we have to draw an adverse inference against the Opposite Parties. These Complaints are made on 21.4.2011 after 6 months, after the notice. Hence, the Complaints never be turned as premature.
11. Here the Complainants wanted a particular site in a particular place, but the Opposite Parties now say that they are prepared to give another site for a different price in different land. This is an untenable and unbearable contention.
12. Now the land price of the real estate is booming. The Opposite Parties can sell their sites to any person at exorbitantly higher rate. The land is worth more than gold and diamond. Hence, there cannot be any problem to the Opposite Parties. From the money of the Complainants, they have invested in the lands they are getting fabulous returns. Hence, if we direct the Opposite Parties to pay the amount with interest, we think that will meet the ends of justice. Hence, we hold the above points accordingly and pass the following:-
The said reasoning applies to the facts and circumstances of these cases also. The said order has become final. In view of the above we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
- The complaints are Allowed-in-Part.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay to each of the complainants in complaint Nos.1110/2011, 1111/2011 & 1112/2011 a sum of Rs.4,05,000/- each with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 15.04.2007 until payment within 30 days from the date of this order.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay to each of the complainants in complaint Nos.1139/2011, 1140/2011 & 1141/2011 a sum of Rs.5,06,250/- each with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 15.04.2007 until payment within 30 days from the date of this order.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.2,000/- each to each of the complainants as costs.
- The opposite parties are directed to send the amount as ordered at Serial Nos. 2, 3 & 4 above to each of the complainants in each of the cases and through DD by registered post acknowledgment due and submit the compliance report to this Forum with necessary documents within 45 days from the date of this order.
- Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
- Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.
- The original copy of this order shall be kept in Complaint No.1110/2011 and the authenticated of the same shall be kept in each of the remaining cases i.e., Complaint Nos.1111/2011, 1112/2011, 1139/2011, 1140/2011 & 1141/2011 for reference.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 5th Day of AUGUST 2011).
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
