BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE URBAN

3^rd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

ORDER

SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT

1. This is a complaint under Section 35 of C.P.Act, 2019 for the following reliefs:-

(a) Direct the OPs to return the aforementioned amount of Rs.4,80,000/- along with an interest of 24% p.a.

(b) Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages to the complainant for the mental agony, pain and sufferings, suffered by the complainant due to such action and inaction of the OP.

(c) Award costs and litigation expenses.

(d) Pass such order or direction that this Hon’ble Forum deems fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:-

The complainant has paid Rs.4,80,000/- in three equal installments to the OP for allotment of site measuring 30 x 40 ft..  Even though, the OP promised to allot the site in couple months, but issued circular dated 23.12.2019 as there is a civil litigation in respect of Ayushmanbhava project at Sarjapur.  Accordingly, the complainant called upon the OP either to allot the site or to refund money.  But, OP failed to do so.  This act of the OP amounts to deficiency of service. Therefore, the complainant has been forced to file this complaint.

3. After receipt of notice, the OP appears and files version.  The OP contends that the complainant was supposed to approach this Commission within two years from 31.01.2015 and complaint is barred by limitation.  But, OP admits payment of Rs.4,80,000/- against the cost of the site Rs.6,60,000/-.  The OP has acquired 280 acres of land but the site could not be allotted due to civil litigation.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP.  But, claim of the complainant towards interest and compensation is exorbitant.  Therefore, the OP requests to dismiss the complaint.

4.   The complainant files her affidavit evidence and relies on documents.  The affidavit evidence of President of OP has been filed.  Heard the arguments of the advocate for the complainant.  No argument is advanced on behalf of OP.  We perused the records.

5. The following points arise for our consideration are:-

1.  Whether the complainant proves the deficiency in service on the part of OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

6. Our answers to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:  In the affirmative.

      Point No.2: Affirmative in part.

      Point No.3: As per final orders

REASONS

7. Point Nos.1 and 2:  These two points are co-related to each other.  Therefore, these two points have been taken into consideration to avoid repetition of discussion.  The fact of payment of in all Rs.4,80,000/- by the complainant to the OP towards site measuring 30 x 40 ft. in three installments is not in dispute.  This payment has been proved through documents Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5.  It is also admitted fact that OP has issued a circular dated 23.12.2019 that due to civil litigation, the site was not allotted within time.
8. The question arises, whether the OP was interested either to allot the site or to refund the amount?  The OP admits receipt of Rs.4,80,000/-.  But, OP neither come forward either to allot site in any of the project to the complainant nor comes forward to refund Rs.4,80,000/- to the complainant.  In response to notice dated 04.08.2012, the complainant has paid Rs.1,20,000/- on 25.02.2011, Rs.1,20,000/- on 23.04.2011, Rs.1,20,000/- on 10.11.2012 and Rs.1,20,000/- on 31.01.2015.
9. According to the OP, the complaint is barred by limitation as complainant fails to filed this complaint within two years from 31.01.2015.  It is relevant to note that the OP issued a circular dated 23.12.2019 that due to 43 civil litigations, the site was not allotted.  This complaint came to filed on 11.12.2020.  It means, the complaint has been filed within two years from 23.12.2019.  The OP is not right in saying that complaint is barred by limitation.
10. It has been proved that despite payment of Rs.4,80,000/- by the complainant, the OP fails to refund the money and also fails to allot any site to the complainant.  This act of the OP amounts to deficiency of service.  Therefore, the OP is liable to refund Rs.4,80,000/- to the complainant.
11. Even though, the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OP. But, the claim of the complainant interest at 24% p.a. and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation is exorbitant.  The payment of the complainant has been locked with the OP.  Under such circumstances, the complainant is entitled to interest at 10% p.a. at Rs.1,20,000/- on 25.02.2011, Rs.1,20,000/- on 23.04.2011, Rs.1,20,000/- on 10.11.2012 and Rs.1,20,000/- on 31.01.2015 till realization.  When we are awarding interest, it is not proper to award any compensation.
12. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion referred above, the complaint requires to be allowed in part.  The OP is liable to refund of Rs.4,80,000/- with interest at 10% p.a. Rs.1,20,000/- from 25.02.2011, on Rs.1,20,000/- from 23.04.2011, on Rs.1,20,000/- from 10.11.2012 and on Rs.1,20,000/- from 31.01.2015 till realization.  The complainant is not entitled to compensation in addition to interest.  The complainant has availed the service of notice therefore, cost of litigation is quantified at Rs.10,000/-.   Hence, we proceed to pass the following  

  O R D E R

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The OP shall refund Rs.4,80,000/- to the complainant with interest at 10% p.a. on Rs.1,20,000/- from 25.02.2011, on Rs.1,20,000/- from 23.04.2011, on Rs.1,20,000/- from 10.11.2012 and on Rs.1,20,000/- from 31.01.2015 till realization.
3. The OP shall pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant.
4. OP shall comply this order within 60 days from this date.
5. Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 3^rd day of February, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant are as follows