Karnataka State "D" Group Employees Central Assn. V/S K.N.Shivashankar - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/08/2582

K.N.Shivashankar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Karnataka State "D" Group Employees Central Assn. - Opp.Party(s)

H.P.Leeladhar

28 Jan 2009

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/2582

K.N.Shivashankar						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Karnataka State "D" Group Employees Central Assn.						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 27.11.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 28th JANUARY 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT Nos. 2582, 2583, 2584, 2585, 2586, 2587, 2588, 2589, 2590, 2591 & 2592/2008 COMPLAINT NO. 2582/08 COMPLAINANT COMPLAINT NO. 2583/08 COMPLAINANT COMPLAINT NO. 2584/08 COMPLAINANT COMPLAINT NO. 2585/08 COMPLAINANT COMPLAINT NO. 2586/08 COMPLAINANT COMPLAINT NO. 2587/08 COMPLAINANT COMPLAINT NO. 2588/08 COMPLAINANT COMPLAINT NO. 2589/08 COMPLAINANT COMPLAINT NO. 2590/08 COMPLAINANT COMPLAINT NO. 2591/08 COMPLAINANT COMPLAINT NO. 2592/08 COMPLAINANT Sri. K.N. Shivashankar, S/o. Late K. Narasimha Shasthri, Aged about 59 years, R/at No. 11, 7th Cross, Prashanth Nagar, Bangalore 560 079. Sri. A.G. Manjunath, S/o. Late A.S. Ganapathi, Aged about 37 years, R/at C/o No.4, 4th Cross, Papareddy Palya, Arunachalam Layout, Nagarabhavi 2nd Stage, Bangalore 560 072. And also working at C/o. Delta Control Systems, No. 63/3, Industrial Estate, 5th Cross, 1st Main, Ashwathnagara, Sunkadakatte, Bangalore 560 091. Sri. K.G. Vijaya Kumar, S/o. Gopalakrishna Shetty, Aged about 44 years, R/at No. 58, 2nd Main Road, N.T. Pet, Bangalore - 560 002. Sri. G.H. Hanumanthaiah, S/o. Hanumanthaiah, Aged about 51 years, R/at No. 1001, 2nd C Cross, 3rd Block, 3rd Stage, Basaveshwara Nagar, Bangalore 560 079. Sri. G. Dayashankar, S/o. Late G.C. Obaiah, Aged about 49 years, R/at C/o. Smt. K. Rohini, No. 34, 14th Cross, 5th Main, Srinidhi Layout, Chunchaghatta, Bangalore 560 062. Sri. M.B. Mallappa, S/o. Late Basappa, Aged about 73 years, R/at No. 4108, KUSUMA, 4th Block, Nandi Park Apartment, Gottigere, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore 560 083. Smt. Sunitha Shilly, W/o. Shilly Joseph, Aged about 38 years, R/at No. 33, 5th Main, 6th Phase, West of Chord Road, 1st Stage, Rajajinagar, Bangalore 560 010. Sri. Nagashayana, S/o. K. Venkataswamy, Aged about 47 years, R/at No. 1063, SJH Road, Vidyaranyapura, 1st Main, Mysore 08. Rep. by his GPA Holder Sri. C.V. Chandra Mouli. Smt. C.L. Anusuya, W/o. V. Raja shankar, Aged about 46 years, R/at No. 456, 13th Cross, 5th Main, D Group Layout, Srigandadakaval, Bangalore 560 091. Sri Ningaiah, S/o. Late Kempaiah, Aged about 43 years, R/at Mylaralingeshwara Nilaya, No. 52, 4th Stage, 4th Block, Opp. to Maruthi Vidyamandira, Basaveshwaranagara, Bangalore 560 079. Smt. Ponnamma, W/o. Sri. Ravi. P, Aged about 40 years, R/at C/o. Smt. Gayathri, No. 52, 10th A Cross, Prashanth Nagar, Bangalore 560 079. Advocate (H.P. Leeladhar) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Karnataka State D Group Employees Central Association (R), M.S. Building, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Bangalore 560 001. Rep. by its Secretary. 2. Karnataka State D Group Employees Central Association (R), M.S. Building, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Bangalore 560 001. Rep. by its President. Advocate (Balaraj. M.V.) O R D E R These are the complaints filed by the respective complainants U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to register a site in their favour and put them in possession and pay a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. 2. As the opposite parties are common, the question involved and relief claimed being the same, in order to avoid the repetition of facts and multiciplity of reasoning in the interest of justice these cases stand disposed of by this common order. 3. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaints, are as under: Complainants being lured away with the advertisement and propaganda issued by the OP, who claims to be an association engaged in formation of residential sites of various dimensions in a form of a layout in and around Bangalore, thought of becoming members of the OP association. OP accepted their membership allotted them the member number. Each one of these complainants opted to purchase a site of their choice and paid a lump sum amount in that regard. OP having allotted the site executed the sale deed in their favour and also issued the possession certificate, hakku patra, etc. But thereafter to the utter shock and surprise of the complainants they came to know that the sites allotted to them became the part and parcel of a CA sites acquired by the BDA. As such they are not unable to take the actual and physical possession of the said site, registered in their favour and unable to construct their dream house. The repeated requests and demands made by the each one of these complainants to provide them the alternative site in the said layout, went in futile. OP came up with a lame excuse that their hands are tied because of the orders passed by the Honble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 26548/2005. Though there are still 400 vacant sites free from all encumbrance available at the disposal of the OP, on one or the other reason it is not executing the sale deed with respect to the alternative site. Though complainants invested their hard earned money, they are unable to reap the fruits of their investment because of the hostile attitude of the OP. For the convenience sake the membership no., date of sale deed, date of P.C., site no., measurement, amount paid, date of legal notice as noted in the form of a chart below. Complaint No. Membership No. Date of Sale deed P.C. No. Dt. Site No. Measurement Amount Paid Date of Legal notice 2582/08 1291 12.2.02 1291 1156 30 X 50 97,080 10.11.08 14.3.02 2583/08 2697 26.10.02 2697 1151 30 X 50 97,080 10.11.08 21.09.02 2584/08 2874 19.06.04 2874 1116 26 X 58 50,980 10.11.08 20.5.05 2585/08 2380 29.06.02 2380 1142 30 X 50 85,855 10.11.08 12.6.02 2586/08 551 31.08.02 551 1140 30 X 50 76,080 10.11.08 13.08.02 2587/08 2417 30.07.02 2417 1136 30 X 50 97,080 10.11.08 29.06.02 2588/08 2699 26.10.02 2699 1134 30 X 50 97,080 10.11.08 21.09.02 2589/08 1512 08.10.02 1512 1157 30 X 50 97,080 10.11.08 26.06.02 2590/08 2861 27.04.04 2861 1126-A 30 X 35 86,470 10.11.08 19.03.03 2591/08 865 28.09.02 865 1133 30 X 50 97,080 10.11.08 08.09.02 2592/08 2698 26.10.02 2698 1129 30 X 50 97,080 10.11.08 21.09.02 Complainants caused the legal notice to the OP, again there was no response. Thus each one of these complainants felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances they are advised to file these complaints and sought for the relief accordingly. 4. On appearance, OP filed the version. The defence set out by the OP in all these complaints is almost same and identical. It is contended by the OP that BDA is required to release 55% of the land to form sites so as to allot them to the members, but unfortunately it granted permission only to 49.99%. The repeated requests and demands made to BDA to release the remaining land, went in futile. Unfortunately the sites allotted to these complainants formed the part and parcel of the land which was not released by the BDA to the OP. In addition to that in pursuance of the orders of the Honble High Court of Karnataka, they are not in a position to alter the said original plan. Under such circumstances they are unable to help the complainants. OP issued the paper publication calling upon the aggrieved persons like complainants to help and assist them in opting to the alternative sites in the other layout to be formed by them near Doddaaladamara. Complainant failed to pay the remaining sital value. OP even till today ready to provide the alternative site at Doddaaladamara, Mysore Road, Bangalore. Complainants without exhausting the said remedy have come up with these false and frivolous complaints. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Because of the legal hurdles OP is unable to satisfy the complainants. The complaints are devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 5. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the each one of these complainants filed the respective affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard. 6. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in these complaints are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainants have proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainants are entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 7. 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: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 8. At the outset it is not at dispute that each one of these complainants have become the member of the OP association with a fond hope of purchasing a site of their choice in the Srigandadakaval, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, layout formed by the OP. OP having accepted their membership allotted them the number. Each one of these complainants opted to purchase a site of their choice and they went on paying the sital value. OP even issued the possession certificate as well as hakku patra and executed the sale deed. The documents to that effect are produced. 9. The evidence of the complainants finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents. There is nothing to discard their sworn testimony. Now it is the grievance of the complainants that though OP registered the site in their favour, they are unable to take the physical and actual possession of the same because of the fact that area is acquired by the BDA to the form of CA sites. OP has admitted this fact that the sites allotted to each one of these complainants formed the part and parcel of the CA sites area acquired by the BDA. According to OP BDA is expected to release 55% of the total area of the land acquired by OP for the said layout, but it released only 49.99% and unfortunately the sites allotted to these complainants formed the part and parcel of the land which is not released by the BDA. 10. Having gone through the said admitted facts one thing is made clear that the sites allotted and registered in favour of the complainants formed the part and parcel of the CA sites acquired by the BDA. That means to say complainants are deprived of the physical and actual possession of the site so also they have lost their title as well as whatever the money they have invested towards the purchase of the said sites is blocked and they are unable to reap the fruits of their investment. The fact that OP received the said huge amount from all these complainants long back is not at dispute. 11. OP has further stated that there is a stay order granted by Honble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 26548/2005, wherein their hands are tied to alter or modify the plan submitted by them earlier to the BDA. So these facts go to show that complainants are put to lot of inconvenience, though they have invested their hard earned money. Of course OP has come up with an alternative remedy suggesting that they are forming another layout near Doddaaladamara at Mysore Road, Bangalore carved out of Sy. No. 53 and 54 of Belalu Village. No such documents are produced to show that the said layout is approved by the statutory authority and certain sites are available at the disposal of the OP so as to allot them to these complainants. 12. The complainants have alleged that the BDA has released nearly 1,200 sites only 800 sites were allotted to the members, remaining 400 sites are still vacant which are at the disposal of the OP. A document to that effect is produced by the complainants and that fact is not denied by the OP as could be seen from the evidence as well as version. But still the point remains is whether those remaining 400 sites are of dimension of 30 X 50 feet which these complainants opted to purchase remained unexplained. 13. It is much contended by the OP that complainants are still in due of certain amount towards the cost of the site. What is the total cost of the site allotted to the complainants is not mentioned by the OP. So that defence appears to be defence for defence sake, just to save their skin out of sin, it is a mere eye wash. If the complainants are the defaulters, OP would have taken steps to recover the remaining sital value. But no such steps are taken. The execution of the registered sale deeds speaks to the fact that complainants have paid entire sital value. 14. As already stated by us in the above said paras, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case OP has not discharged its obligation, thought it has received the sital value from the complainants long back. OP has put forthing certain lame excuse with regard to the intervention of BDA as well the stay order granted by the Honble High Court of Karnataka. When we take notice all these hurdles complainants for no fault of theirs, are made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. The evidence of the complainants appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. 15. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainants, the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake. We are satisfied that the complainants are able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence they are entitled for certain relief. In our view the justice will be met by directing the OP to allot a site in the remaining 400 sites which are at their disposal in Srigandadakaval, Yeshwanthpura Hobli if it cant be done then in the alternative to allot the site of a same dimension for the same cost at Doddaaladamara layout if it is duly approved by the statutory authority register it at the cost of complainants and put each one of these complainants in physical and actual possession of the said site in a reasonable time. If that is also not possible then the complainants are entitled for the refund of their hard earned money with interest so also for compensation along with a litigation cost. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaints are allowed. In complaint No. 2582/2008 OP is directed to allot a site measuring 30 X 50 feet in Srigandadakaval, Yeshwanthpura Hobli within 3 months from the date of communication of this order. If for any reason it is not possible then allot the site of a same size for the same cost at their Doddaaladamara layout carved out of Sy. No. 53 and 54 of Belalu Village register site at the cost of complainant and put the complainant in actual and physical possession within 6 months from this day. Failing in which OP is directed to refund the amount paid by the complainant towards the sital value along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of sale deed i.e. 12.02.2002 till realization and also pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. In complaint No. 2583/2008 OP is directed to allot a site measuring 30 X 50 feet in Srigandadakaval, Yeshwanthpura Hobli within 3 months from the date of communication of this order. If for any reason it is not possible then allot the site of a same size for the same cost at their Doddaaladamara layout carved out of Sy. No. 53 and 54 of Belalu Village register site at the cost of complainant and put the complainant in actual and physical possession within 6 months from this day. Failing in which OP is directed to refund the amount paid by the complainant towards the sital value along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of sale deed i.e. 26.10.2002 till realization and also pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. In complaint No. 2584/2008 OP is directed to allot a site measuring 26 X 58 feet in Srigandadakaval, Yeshwanthpura Hobli within 3 months from the date of communication of this order. If for any reason it is not possible then allot the site of a same size for the same cost at their Doddaaladamara layout carved out of Sy. No. 53 and 54 of Belalu Village register site at the cost of complainant and put the complainant in actual and physical possession within 6 months from this day. Failing in which OP is directed to refund the amount paid by the complainant towards the sital value along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of sale deed 19.06.2004 till realization and also pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. In complaint No. 2585/2008 OP is directed to allot a site measuring 30 X 50 feet in Srigandadakaval, Yeshwanthpura Hobli within 3 months from the date of communication of this order. If for any reason it is not possible then allot the site of a same size for the same cost at their Doddaaladamara layout carved out of Sy. No. 53 and 54 of Belalu Village register site at the cost of complainant and put the complainant in actual and physical possession within 6 months from this day. Failing in which OP is directed to refund the amount paid by the complainant towards the sital value along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of sale deed i.e. 29.06.2002 till realization and also pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. In complaint No. 2586/2008 OP is directed to allot a site measuring 30 X 50 feet in Srigandadakaval, Yeshwanthpura Hobli within 3 months from the date of communication of this order. If for any reason it is not possible then allot the site of a same size for the same cost at their Doddaaladamara layout carved out of Sy. No. 53 and 54 of Belalu Village register site at the cost of complainant and put the complainant in actual and physical possession within 6 months from this day. Failing in which OP is directed to refund the amount paid by the complainant towards the sital value along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of sale deed i.e. 31.08.2002 till realization and also pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. In complaint No. 2587/2008 OP is directed to allot a site measuring 30 X 50 feet in Srigandadakaval, Yeshwanthpura Hobli within 3 months from the date of communication of this order. If for any reason it is not possible then allot the site of a same size for the same cost at their Doddaaladamara layout carved out of Sy. No. 53 and 54 of Belalu Village register site at the cost of complainant and put the complainant in actual and physical possession within 6 months from this day. Failing in which OP is directed to refund the amount paid by the complainant towards the sital value along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of sale deed i.e. 30.07.2002 till realization and also pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. In complaint No. 2588/2008 OP is directed to allot a site measuring 30 X 50 feet in Srigandadakaval, Yeshwanthpura Hobli within 3 months from the date of communication of this order. If for any reason it is not possible then allot the site of a same size for the same cost at their Doddaaladamara layout carved out of Sy. No. 53 and 54 of Belalu Village register site at the cost of complainant and put the complainant in actual and physical possession within 6 months from this day. Failing in which OP is directed to refund the amount paid by the complainant towards the sital value along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of sale deed i.e. 26.10.2002 till realization and also pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. In complaint No. 2589/2008 OP is directed to allot a site measuring 30 X 50 feet in Srigandadakaval, Yeshwanthpura Hobli within 3 months from the date of communication of this order. If for any reason it is not possible then allot the site of a same size for the same cost at their Doddaaladamara layout carved out of Sy. No. 53 and 54 of Belalu Village register site at the cost of complainant and put the complainant in actual and physical possession within 6 months from this day. Failing in which OP is directed to refund the amount paid by the complainant towards the sital value along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of sale deed i.e. 08.10.2002 till realization and also pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. In complaint No. 2590/2008 OP is directed to allot a site measuring 30 X 35 feet in Srigandadakaval, Yeshwanthpura Hobli within 3 months from the date of communication of this order. If for any reason it is not possible then allot the site of a same size for the same cost at their Doddaaladamara layout carved out of Sy. No. 53 and 54 of Belalu Village register site at the cost of complainant and put the complainant in actual and physical possession within 6 months from this day. Failing in which OP is directed to refund the amount paid by the complainant towards the sital value along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of sale deed i.e. 27.04.2004 till realization and also pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. In complaint No. 2591/2008 OP is directed to allot a site measuring 30 X 50 feet in Srigandadakaval, Yeshwanthpura Hobli within 3 months from the date of communication of this order. If for any reason it is not possible then allot the site of a same size for the same cost at their Doddaaladamara layout carved out of Sy. No. 53 and 54 of Belalu Village register site at the cost of complainant and put the complainant in actual and physical possession within 6 months from this day. Failing in which OP is directed to refund the amount paid by the complainant towards the sital value along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of sale deed i.e. 28.09.2002 till realization and also pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. In complaint No. 2592/2008 OP is directed to allot a site measuring 30 X 50 feet in Srigandadakaval, Yeshwanthpura Hobli within 3 months from the date of communication of this order. If for any reason it is not possible then allot the site of a same size for the same cost at their Doddaaladamara layout carved out of Sy. No. 53 and 54 of Belalu Village register site at the cost of complainant and put the complainant in actual and physical possession within 6 months from this day. Failing in which OP is directed to refund the amount paid by the complainant towards the sital value along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of sale deed i.e. 26.10.2002 till realization and also pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. The original order shall be kept in the file of complaint No. 2582/2008 and a copy of it shall be placed in other respective files. (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 28th day of January 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

COMPLAINT FILED: 27.11.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 28th JANUARY 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT Nos. 2582, 2583, 2584, 2585, 2586, 2587, 2588, 2589, 2590, 2591 & 2592/2008 COMPLAINT NO. 2582/08 COMPLAINANT COMPLAINT NO. 2583/08 COMPLAINANT COMPLAINT NO. 2584/08 COMPLAINANT COMPLAINT NO. 2585/08 COMPLAINANT COMPLAINT NO. 2586/08 COMPLAINANT COMPLAINT NO. 2587/08 COMPLAINANT COMPLAINT NO. 2588/08 COMPLAINANT COMPLAINT NO. 2589/08 COMPLAINANT COMPLAINT NO. 2590/08 COMPLAINANT COMPLAINT NO. 2591/08 COMPLAINANT COMPLAINT NO. 2592/08 COMPLAINANT Sri. K.N. Shivashankar, S/o. Late K. Narasimha Shasthri, Aged about 59 years, R/at No. 11, 7th Cross, Prashanth Nagar, Bangalore 560 079. Sri. A.G. Manjunath, S/o. Late A.S. Ganapathi, Aged about 37 years, R/at C/o No.4, 4th Cross, Papareddy Palya, Arunachalam Layout, Nagarabhavi 2nd Stage, Bangalore 560 072. And also working at C/o. Delta Control Systems, No. 63/3, Industrial Estate, 5th Cross, 1st Main, Ashwathnagara, Sunkadakatte, Bangalore 560 091. Sri. K.G. Vijaya Kumar, S/o. Gopalakrishna Shetty, Aged about 44 years, R/at No. 58, 2nd Main Road, N.T. Pet, Bangalore - 560 002. Sri. G.H. Hanumanthaiah, S/o. Hanumanthaiah, Aged about 51 years, R/at No. 1001, 2nd C Cross, 3rd Block, 3rd Stage, Basaveshwara Nagar, Bangalore 560 079. Sri. G. Dayashankar, S/o. Late G.C. Obaiah, Aged about 49 years, R/at C/o. Smt. K. Rohini, No. 34, 14th Cross, 5th Main, Srinidhi Layout, Chunchaghatta, Bangalore 560 062. Sri. M.B. Mallappa, S/o. Late Basappa, Aged about 73 years, R/at No. 4108, KUSUMA, 4th Block, Nandi Park Apartment, Gottigere, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore 560 083. Smt. Sunitha Shilly, W/o. Shilly Joseph, Aged about 38 years, R/at No. 33, 5th Main, 6th Phase, West of Chord Road, 1st Stage, Rajajinagar, Bangalore 560 010. Sri. Nagashayana, S/o. K. Venkataswamy, Aged about 47 years, R/at No. 1063, SJH Road, Vidyaranyapura, 1st Main, Mysore 08. Rep. by his GPA Holder Sri. C.V. Chandra Mouli. Smt. C.L. Anusuya, W/o. V. Raja shankar, Aged about 46 years, R/at No. 456, 13th Cross, 5th Main, D Group Layout, Srigandadakaval, Bangalore 560 091. Sri Ningaiah, S/o. Late Kempaiah, Aged about 43 years, R/at Mylaralingeshwara Nilaya, No. 52, 4th Stage, 4th Block, Opp. to Maruthi Vidyamandira, Basaveshwaranagara, Bangalore 560 079. Smt. Ponnamma, W/o. Sri. Ravi. P, Aged about 40 years, R/at C/o. Smt. Gayathri, No. 52, 10th A Cross, Prashanth Nagar, Bangalore 560 079. Advocate (H.P. Leeladhar) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Karnataka State D Group Employees Central Association (R), M.S. Building, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Bangalore 560 001. Rep. by its Secretary. 2. Karnataka State D Group Employees Central Association (R), M.S. Building, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Bangalore 560 001. Rep. by its President. Advocate (Balaraj. M.V.) O R D E R These are the complaints filed by the respective complainants U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to register a site in their favour and put them in possession and pay a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. 2. As the opposite parties are common, the question involved and relief claimed being the same, in order to avoid the repetition of facts and multiciplity of reasoning in the interest of justice these cases stand disposed of by this common order. 3. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaints, are as under: Complainants being lured away with the advertisement and propaganda issued by the OP, who claims to be an association engaged in formation of residential sites of various dimensions in a form of a layout in and around Bangalore, thought of becoming members of the OP association. OP accepted their membership allotted them the member number. Each one of these complainants opted to purchase a site of their choice and paid a lump sum amount in that regard. OP having allotted the site executed the sale deed in their favour and also issued the possession certificate, hakku patra, etc. But thereafter to the utter shock and surprise of the complainants they came to know that the sites allotted to them became the part and parcel of a CA sites acquired by the BDA. As such they are not unable to take the actual and physical possession of the said site, registered in their favour and unable to construct their dream house. The repeated requests and demands made by the each one of these complainants to provide them the alternative site in the said layout, went in futile. OP came up with a lame excuse that their hands are tied because of the orders passed by the Honble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 26548/2005. Though there are still 400 vacant sites free from all encumbrance available at the disposal of the OP, on one or the other reason it is not executing the sale deed with respect to the alternative site. Though complainants invested their hard earned money, they are unable to reap the fruits of their investment because of the hostile attitude of the OP. For the convenience sake the membership no., date of sale deed, date of P.C., site no., measurement, amount paid, date of legal notice as noted in the form of a chart below. Complaint No. Membership No. Date of Sale deed P.C. No. Dt. Site No. Measurement Amount Paid Date of Legal notice 2582/08 1291 12.2.02 1291 1156 30 X 50 97,080 10.11.08 14.3.02 2583/08 2697 26.10.02 2697 1151 30 X 50 97,080 10.11.08 21.09.02 2584/08 2874 19.06.04 2874 1116 26 X 58 50,980 10.11.08 20.5.05 2585/08 2380 29.06.02 2380 1142 30 X 50 85,855 10.11.08 12.6.02 2586/08 551 31.08.02 551 1140 30 X 50 76,080 10.11.08 13.08.02 2587/08 2417 30.07.02 2417 1136 30 X 50 97,080 10.11.08 29.06.02 2588/08 2699 26.10.02 2699 1134 30 X 50 97,080 10.11.08 21.09.02 2589/08 1512 08.10.02 1512 1157 30 X 50 97,080 10.11.08 26.06.02 2590/08 2861 27.04.04 2861 1126-A 30 X 35 86,470 10.11.08 19.03.03 2591/08 865 28.09.02 865 1133 30 X 50 97,080 10.11.08 08.09.02 2592/08 2698 26.10.02 2698 1129 30 X 50 97,080 10.11.08 21.09.02 Complainants caused the legal notice to the OP, again there was no response. Thus each one of these complainants felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances they are advised to file these complaints and sought for the relief accordingly. 4. On appearance, OP filed the version. The defence set out by the OP in all these complaints is almost same and identical. It is contended by the OP that BDA is required to release 55% of the land to form sites so as to allot them to the members, but unfortunately it granted permission only to 49.99%. The repeated requests and demands made to BDA to release the remaining land, went in futile. Unfortunately the sites allotted to these complainants formed the part and parcel of the land which was not released by the BDA to the OP. In addition to that in pursuance of the orders of the Honble High Court of Karnataka, they are not in a position to alter the said original plan. Under such circumstances they are unable to help the complainants. OP issued the paper publication calling upon the aggrieved persons like complainants to help and assist them in opting to the alternative sites in the other layout to be formed by them near Doddaaladamara. Complainant failed to pay the remaining sital value. OP even till today ready to provide the alternative site at Doddaaladamara, Mysore Road, Bangalore. Complainants without exhausting the said remedy have come up with these false and frivolous complaints. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Because of the legal hurdles OP is unable to satisfy the complainants. The complaints are devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 5. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the each one of these complainants filed the respective affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard. 6. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in these complaints are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainants have proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainants are entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 7. 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: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 8. At the outset it is not at dispute that each one of these complainants have become the member of the OP association with a fond hope of purchasing a site of their choice in the Srigandadakaval, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, layout formed by the OP. OP having accepted their membership allotted them the number. Each one of these complainants opted to purchase a site of their choice and they went on paying the sital value. OP even issued the possession certificate as well as hakku patra and executed the sale deed. The documents to that effect are produced. 9. The evidence of the complainants finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents. There is nothing to discard their sworn testimony. Now it is the grievance of the complainants that though OP registered the site in their favour, they are unable to take the physical and actual possession of the same because of the fact that area is acquired by the BDA to the form of CA sites. OP has admitted this fact that the sites allotted to each one of these complainants formed the part and parcel of the CA sites area acquired by the BDA. According to OP BDA is expected to release 55% of the total area of the land acquired by OP for the said layout, but it released only 49.99% and unfortunately the sites allotted to these complainants formed the part and parcel of the land which is not released by the BDA. 10. Having gone through the said admitted facts one thing is made clear that the sites allotted and registered in favour of the complainants formed the part and parcel of the CA sites acquired by the BDA. That means to say complainants are deprived of the physical and actual possession of the site so also they have lost their title as well as whatever the money they have invested towards the purchase of the said sites is blocked and they are unable to reap the fruits of their investment. The fact that OP received the said huge amount from all these complainants long back is not at dispute. 11. OP has further stated that there is a stay order granted by Honble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 26548/2005, wherein their hands are tied to alter or modify the plan submitted by them earlier to the BDA. So these facts go to show that complainants are put to lot of inconvenience, though they have invested their hard earned money. Of course OP has come up with an alternative remedy suggesting that they are forming another layout near Doddaaladamara at Mysore Road, Bangalore carved out of Sy. No. 53 and 54 of Belalu Village. No such documents are produced to show that the said layout is approved by the statutory authority and certain sites are available at the disposal of the OP so as to allot them to these complainants. 12. The complainants have alleged that the BDA has released nearly 1,200 sites only 800 sites were allotted to the members, remaining 400 sites are still vacant which are at the disposal of the OP. A document to that effect is produced by the complainants and that fact is not denied by the OP as could be seen from the evidence as well as version. But still the point remains is whether those remaining 400 sites are of dimension of 30 X 50 feet which these complainants opted to purchase remained unexplained. 13. It is much contended by the OP that complainants are still in due of certain amount towards the cost of the site. What is the total cost of the site allotted to the complainants is not mentioned by the OP. So that defence appears to be defence for defence sake, just to save their skin out of sin, it is a mere eye wash. If the complainants are the defaulters, OP would have taken steps to recover the remaining sital value. But no such steps are taken. The execution of the registered sale deeds speaks to the fact that complainants have paid entire sital value. 14. As already stated by us in the above said paras, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case OP has not discharged its obligation, thought it has received the sital value from the complainants long back. OP has put forthing certain lame excuse with regard to the intervention of BDA as well the stay order granted by the Honble High Court of Karnataka. When we take notice all these hurdles complainants for no fault of theirs, are made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. The evidence of the complainants appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. 15. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainants, the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake. We are satisfied that the complainants are able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence they are entitled for certain relief. In our view the justice will be met by directing the OP to allot a site in the remaining 400 sites which are at their disposal in Srigandadakaval, Yeshwanthpura Hobli if it cant be done then in the alternative to allot the site of a same dimension for the same cost at Doddaaladamara layout if it is duly approved by the statutory authority register it at the cost of complainants and put each one of these complainants in physical and actual possession of the said site in a reasonable time. If that is also not possible then the complainants are entitled for the refund of their hard earned money with interest so also for compensation along with a litigation cost. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaints are allowed. In complaint No. 2582/2008 OP is directed to allot a site measuring 30 X 50 feet in Srigandadakaval, Yeshwanthpura Hobli within 3 months from the date of communication of this order. If for any reason it is not possible then allot the site of a same size for the same cost at their Doddaaladamara layout carved out of Sy. No. 53 and 54 of Belalu Village register site at the cost of complainant and put the complainant in actual and physical possession within 6 months from this day. Failing in which OP is directed to refund the amount paid by the complainant towards the sital value along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of sale deed i.e. 12.02.2002 till realization and also pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. In complaint No. 2583/2008 OP is directed to allot a site measuring 30 X 50 feet in Srigandadakaval, Yeshwanthpura Hobli within 3 months from the date of communication of this order. If for any reason it is not possible then allot the site of a same size for the same cost at their Doddaaladamara layout carved out of Sy. No. 53 and 54 of Belalu Village register site at the cost of complainant and put the complainant in actual and physical possession within 6 months from this day. Failing in which OP is directed to refund the amount paid by the complainant towards the sital value along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of sale deed i.e. 26.10.2002 till realization and also pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. In complaint No. 2584/2008 OP is directed to allot a site measuring 26 X 58 feet in Srigandadakaval, Yeshwanthpura Hobli within 3 months from the date of communication of this order. If for any reason it is not possible then allot the site of a same size for the same cost at their Doddaaladamara layout carved out of Sy. No. 53 and 54 of Belalu Village register site at the cost of complainant and put the complainant in actual and physical possession within 6 months from this day. Failing in which OP is directed to refund the amount paid by the complainant towards the sital value along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of sale deed 19.06.2004 till realization and also pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. In complaint No. 2585/2008 OP is directed to allot a site measuring 30 X 50 feet in Srigandadakaval, Yeshwanthpura Hobli within 3 months from the date of communication of this order. If for any reason it is not possible then allot the site of a same size for the same cost at their Doddaaladamara layout carved out of Sy. No. 53 and 54 of Belalu Village register site at the cost of complainant and put the complainant in actual and physical possession within 6 months from this day. Failing in which OP is directed to refund the amount paid by the complainant towards the sital value along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of sale deed i.e. 29.06.2002 till realization and also pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. In complaint No. 2586/2008 OP is directed to allot a site measuring 30 X 50 feet in Srigandadakaval, Yeshwanthpura Hobli within 3 months from the date of communication of this order. If for any reason it is not possible then allot the site of a same size for the same cost at their Doddaaladamara layout carved out of Sy. No. 53 and 54 of Belalu Village register site at the cost of complainant and put the complainant in actual and physical possession within 6 months from this day. Failing in which OP is directed to refund the amount paid by the complainant towards the sital value along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of sale deed i.e. 31.08.2002 till realization and also pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. In complaint No. 2587/2008 OP is directed to allot a site measuring 30 X 50 feet in Srigandadakaval, Yeshwanthpura Hobli within 3 months from the date of communication of this order. If for any reason it is not possible then allot the site of a same size for the same cost at their Doddaaladamara layout carved out of Sy. No. 53 and 54 of Belalu Village register site at the cost of complainant and put the complainant in actual and physical possession within 6 months from this day. Failing in which OP is directed to refund the amount paid by the complainant towards the sital value along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of sale deed i.e. 30.07.2002 till realization and also pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. In complaint No. 2588/2008 OP is directed to allot a site measuring 30 X 50 feet in Srigandadakaval, Yeshwanthpura Hobli within 3 months from the date of communication of this order. If for any reason it is not possible then allot the site of a same size for the same cost at their Doddaaladamara layout carved out of Sy. No. 53 and 54 of Belalu Village register site at the cost of complainant and put the complainant in actual and physical possession within 6 months from this day. Failing in which OP is directed to refund the amount paid by the complainant towards the sital value along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of sale deed i.e. 26.10.2002 till realization and also pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. In complaint No. 2589/2008 OP is directed to allot a site measuring 30 X 50 feet in Srigandadakaval, Yeshwanthpura Hobli within 3 months from the date of communication of this order. If for any reason it is not possible then allot the site of a same size for the same cost at their Doddaaladamara layout carved out of Sy. No. 53 and 54 of Belalu Village register site at the cost of complainant and put the complainant in actual and physical possession within 6 months from this day. Failing in which OP is directed to refund the amount paid by the complainant towards the sital value along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of sale deed i.e. 08.10.2002 till realization and also pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. In complaint No. 2590/2008 OP is directed to allot a site measuring 30 X 35 feet in Srigandadakaval, Yeshwanthpura Hobli within 3 months from the date of communication of this order. If for any reason it is not possible then allot the site of a same size for the same cost at their Doddaaladamara layout carved out of Sy. No. 53 and 54 of Belalu Village register site at the cost of complainant and put the complainant in actual and physical possession within 6 months from this day. Failing in which OP is directed to refund the amount paid by the complainant towards the sital value along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of sale deed i.e. 27.04.2004 till realization and also pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. In complaint No. 2591/2008 OP is directed to allot a site measuring 30 X 50 feet in Srigandadakaval, Yeshwanthpura Hobli within 3 months from the date of communication of this order. If for any reason it is not possible then allot the site of a same size for the same cost at their Doddaaladamara layout carved out of Sy. No. 53 and 54 of Belalu Village register site at the cost of complainant and put the complainant in actual and physical possession within 6 months from this day. Failing in which OP is directed to refund the amount paid by the complainant towards the sital value along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of sale deed i.e. 28.09.2002 till realization and also pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. In complaint No. 2592/2008 OP is directed to allot a site measuring 30 X 50 feet in Srigandadakaval, Yeshwanthpura Hobli within 3 months from the date of communication of this order. If for any reason it is not possible then allot the site of a same size for the same cost at their Doddaaladamara layout carved out of Sy. No. 53 and 54 of Belalu Village register site at the cost of complainant and put the complainant in actual and physical possession within 6 months from this day. Failing in which OP is directed to refund the amount paid by the complainant towards the sital value along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of sale deed i.e. 26.10.2002 till realization and also pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. The original order shall be kept in the file of complaint No. 2582/2008 and a copy of it shall be placed in other respective files. (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 28th day of January 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.