<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 29.07.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 17th OCTOBER 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1664/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.Narayanappa GS/o Gangappa,Hindu,Aged about 36 years,Residing at No.92,4th A Main Road,Govindarajanagar,Bangalore – 560 040Advocate – Sri.NeelakantaiahV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Karnataka State ‘D’ Group Employees Central Associaion,M.S Building,Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi,Bangalore – 560 001.Represented by its Secretary.Advocate – Sri.Balaraj M.V<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 identify the site No.2483 measuring 40’ x 32’ and put him in possession or in the alternative to allot a different site of same measurement in their other locality and for such other relief’s 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 /> <br /> Complainant become the member of the OP association having No.1921 with an object of purchasing a site in the layout to be formed by the OP, who is engaged in formation of residential layouts consisting of sites of various dimensions so as to allot them to its members. Complainant opted to purchase a site measuring 40’ x 32’. OP having accepted his membership issued the possession certificate with respect to site No.2483. On 20.05.2004 complainant paid the full consideration of Rs.88,470/-. OP has also executed a registered sale deed with respect to the said property on 19.06.2004 and issued NOC on 01.07.2004. With all that when complainant went to the said layout to his utter shock and surprise he was unable to identify his site. Then he immediately requested the OP to identify the said site and put him in actual possession but it went in vain. His repeated requests and demands made to OP went in futile. Though he has invested his hard earned money he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment. Under such circumstances complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. When OP failed to respond to his request and demand, complainant is constrained 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 the site that was allotted to the complainant formed the part and parcel of the land which BDA acquired for the purpose of formation of roads, parks including play ground and other civic amenities. Actually BDA is required to release 55% of the total area out of the land acquired for the project. But it released only 49.99%. A representation is made on behalf of all the members to the BDA. It is not considered. Now OP has started another project and the layout at Doddaaladamara, Bangalore. It will be ready within 6 months. OP will give preference to the complainant in the said new layout. That fact was intimated to the complainant but still complainant has made hurry in filing this complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Because of the acquisition of the land by the BDA for the formation of the road, park, playground etc., complainant site is merged with the said acquisition. Hence OP is unable to identify the same. 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 /> <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 become member of the OP association and opted to purchase a site measuring 40’ x 32’. It is also not at dispute that OP executed the sale deed with respect to one site bearing No.2483 in their layout by collecting Rs.88,470/- as the cost of the site. Now the grievance of the complainant is that though OP executed the sale deed on 19.06.2004 they have not physically handed over the site to him. When he went to the layout he could not identify and locate the site. As such he made request to OP by addressing a letter to identify his site and put him possession, but it went in vain. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 7. As against this it is contended by the OP that they did acquire the required quantity of land for the formation of the said layout. As per the Gazette Notification BDA is required to release 55% of the total area for the residential sites. Unfortunately it has sanctioned only 49.99% of the land and the site that was sold to the complainant formed the part and parcel of the remaining land acquired by the BDA for the civic amenities like park, roads, play ground etc. Under such circumstances OP is unable to identify the said site. It appears on hearing the grievance of the complainant OP made representation to the BDA to release the remaining portion of the land on 16.09.2003 itself. But unfortunately request of the OP is not considered by the BDA.<br /> <br /> 8. Copy of the said Gazette Notification and letter are produced. Complainant being the member of the OP society must have been aware of all these transactions, correspondence etc. Unfortunately complainant has not pleaded the same in his complaint. The defence set out by the OP clearly goes to show that as on today the site that is allotted to the complainant bearing No.2483 is not inexistence, it is merged with the civic amenities. Under such circumstances this Forum can’t direct the OP to identify the said site and put complainant in possession of the same.<br /> <br /> 9. The other prayer of the complainant is that OP be directed to allot him a similar measurement site in the same locality. Unfortunately complainant has not produced any other piece of document to show that in the said layout there are other vacant sites of the same dimensions available at the disposal of the OP free from all encumbrances. So in absence of production of such documents now it can’t be said that some vacant sites are still available in the said layout at the disposal of the OP. Hence for these reasons also the other alternative prayer can’t be considered.<br /> <br /> 10. On perusal of the version of the OP, OP has come forward to allot an alternative site to the complainant in their new layout in Doddaaladamara, Bangalore which will be ready within 6 months. If the complainant is really interested to acquire a site he has to wait and take the chance in the layout to be formed at Doddaaladamara by the OP. If he is not sure of completion of the said new layout he can also seek for the refund of his sital value with interest and some compensation. Though complainant has not made such prayer bearing in mind the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view it is just and proper to grant the alternative relief like refund of sital value with interest and compensation. <br /> <br /> 11. We are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Though complainant invested his hard earned money he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment. Under such circumstances naturally he must have suffered both mental agony and financial loss. When that is so, he is entitled for certain relief. With these reasons we answer point Nos.1 & 2 accordingly 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 allot a site in favour of the complainant in their new project at Doddaaladamara, Bangalore measuring 40’ x 32’ towards the cost they have already received from the complainant and put him possession after attending to other procedural formalities of registration of the sale deed etc. This order is to be complied within three months from the date of communication of this order.<br /> <br /> Failing in which OP is directed to refund Rs.88,470/- together with interest at the rate of 16% p.a from June 2004 till realization and also pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as a guidance value of the site along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. Within three months from this day.<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 17th day of October 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />