| Complaint Case No. CC/11/361 |
| | | | 1. Sri. M. Sankappa Shetty(M.S.Shetty) | | S/o. Late M.A. Shetty, R/o. at No. 79/13, 18th Cross, 20th Main, M.C.Road, Vijayanagar Bangalore-40. |
|
| | | | | | | | ORDER | sCOMPLAINTS FILED ON: 23.02.2011 DISPOSED ON: 29.07.2011 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 29th DAY of JULY 2011 PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT Nos.361/2011 & 362/2011 Complaint no.361/2011 Complainant Complaint no.362/2011 Complainant OPPOSITE PARTY | M.Sankappa Shetty (M.S.Shetty), S/o late M.Ashetty, Aged about 80 years, Residing at No.79/13, 18th Cross, 20th Main, M.C.Road, Vijayanagar, Bangalore-560 040. Smt.Vijayalakshmi Ballal D/o late Raghuram Ballal, Aged about 55years, Residing at No.79/13, 18th Cross, 20th Main, M.C.Road, Vijayanager, Bangalore. Advocate: Sri.Vittala Shetty P., V/s Kuvempu Nutana Madari Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Niyamita, No.755/20, 8th Cross Road, M.C.Layout, Vijayanagar Bangalore-560 040, Represented by its Secretary. Ex-parte. |
O R D E R SRI. B.S. REDDY, PRESIDENT These two complaints are filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, by the respective complainants seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund the amounts paid towards initial sital deposit with interest at 24% p.a. along with compensation on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. OP is common in both these complaints, the questions involved and the reliefs claimed being similar, in order to avoid the repetition of facts and multiplicity of reasoning’s both these complaints are stand disposed of by this common order. 2. In spite of service of notice by paper publication, OP failed to appear before the Forum without any reasonable cause hence placed ex-parte. 3. Both the complainants filed affidavit evidence in support of their complaint averments. 4. Arguments on complainant’s side heard. 5. We have gone through the complaint averments, the documents produced and affidavit evidence of the complainants. On the basis of complaint averments, affidavit evidence supported by the documentary evidence it becomes clear that in Complaint No.361/2011 the complainant paid an amount of Rs.10,102/- on 08.01.1988 which includes share fee and initial sital deposit and thereafter he has paid further amount of Rs.23,000/-. Thus the total amount paid by the complainant is Rs.32,102/- for allotment of site by OP. The site number being 710 measuring 40 X 60 feet in the layout of Mariyappanapaly Village, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore. The receipts produced are marked as Annexures A to D. 6. In Complaint No.362/2011 the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.10,102/- on 08.01.1988 towards share fee and initial sital deposit to the OP and further paid an amount of Rs.26,000/- under receipt dt.29.09.1994, thus the total amount of Rs.36,102/- is paid to the OP in respect of site No.701 measuring 40 X 60 feet in the same layout stated above. The receipts are produced and marked as Annexures-A, B and C. 7. These complainants were lured away with attractive broachures propaganda and colourable versions of OP’s with regard to allotment of sites in the proposed layout stated above. OP failed to fulfill its obligations in forming the proposed layout and failed to execute the sale deed. The complainants repeatedly visited the OP with a request to execute the sale deed but OP has not complied their demand. The complainants claim that they are entitled to receive damages as if the same amount were invested in some other property, they would have surely profited to the maximum extent. Both the complainants got issued legal notice, but the same was returned with a share that door locked and intimation delivered. The act of OP in not forming the proposed layout and executing the sale deed in favour of the complainants or refunding the amount received, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 8. The very fact of OP remaining ex-parte goes a long way to hold that OP is admitting the complaint allegations. There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged affidavit evidence of the complainants coupled with the documents produced. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainants are entitled for refund of the amount paid with interest at 12% p.a. by way of compensation from the date of respective payments, till the date of realization along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-each. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaints filed by the complainants are allowed in part. 1. In complaint No.361/1OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.33,102/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the respective date of payments, till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. In complaint No.362/2011 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.3,102/-with interest at 12% p.a. from the respective date of payments, till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of this order. Send the copy of this order to both the parties free of cost. This original order shall be kept in the file of the complaint No.361/2011 and a copy of it shall be placed in other complaint. (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 29th day of JULY – 2011.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Cs. sCOMPLAINTS FILED ON: 23.02.2011 DISPOSED ON: 29.07.2011 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 29th DAY of JULY 2011 PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT Nos.361/2011 & 362/2011 | Complaint no.361/2011 Complainant Complaint no.362/2011 Complainant OPPOSITE PARTY | M.Sankappa Shetty (M.S.Shetty), S/o late M.Ashetty, Aged about 80 years, Residing at No.79/13, 18th Cross, 20th Main, M.C.Road, Vijayanagar, Bangalore-560 040. Smt.Vijayalakshmi Ballal D/o late Raghuram Ballal, Aged about 55years, Residing at No.79/13, 18th Cross, 20th Main, M.C.Road, Vijayanager, Bangalore. Advocate: Sri.Vittala Shetty P., V/s Kuvempu Nutana Madari Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Niyamita, No.755/20, 8th Cross Road, M.C.Layout, Vijayanagar Bangalore-560 040, Represented by its Secretary. Ex-parte. | O R D E R SRI. B.S. REDDY, PRESIDENT These two complaints are filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, by the respective complainants seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund the amounts paid towards initial sital deposit with interest at 24% p.a. along with compensation on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. OP is common in both these complaints, the questions involved and the reliefs claimed being similar, in order to avoid the repetition of facts and multiplicity of reasoning’s both these complaints are stand disposed of by this common order. 2. In spite of service of notice by paper publication, OP failed to appear before the Forum without any reasonable cause hence placed ex-parte. 3. Both the complainants filed affidavit evidence in support of their complaint averments. 4. Arguments on complainant’s side heard. 5. We have gone through the complaint averments, the documents produced and affidavit evidence of the complainants. On the basis of complaint averments, affidavit evidence supported by the documentary evidence it becomes clear that in Complaint No.361/2011 the complainant paid an amount of Rs.10,102/- on 08.01.1988 which includes share fee and initial sital deposit and thereafter he has paid further amount of Rs.23,000/-. Thus the total amount paid by the complainant is Rs.32,102/- for allotment of site by OP. The site number being 710 measuring 40 X 60 feet in the layout of Mariyappanapaly Village, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore. The receipts produced are marked as Annexures A to D. 6. In Complaint No.362/2011 the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.10,102/- on 08.01.1988 towards share fee and initial sital deposit to the OP and further paid an amount of Rs.26,000/- under receipt dt.29.09.1994, thus the total amount of Rs.36,102/- is paid to the OP in respect of site No.701 measuring 40 X 60 feet in the same layout stated above. The receipts are produced and marked as Annexures-A, B and C. 7. These complainants were lured away with attractive broachures propaganda and colourable versions of OP’s with regard to allotment of sites in the proposed layout stated above. OP failed to fulfill its obligations in forming the proposed layout and failed to execute the sale deed. The complainants repeatedly visited the OP with a request to execute the sale deed but OP has not complied their demand. The complainants claim that they are entitled to receive damages as if the same amount were invested in some other property, they would have surely profited to the maximum extent. Both the complainants got issued legal notice, but the same was returned with a share that door locked and intimation delivered. The act of OP in not forming the proposed layout and executing the sale deed in favour of the complainants or refunding the amount received, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 8. The very fact of OP remaining ex-parte goes a long way to hold that OP is admitting the complaint allegations. There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged affidavit evidence of the complainants coupled with the documents produced. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainants are entitled for refund of the amount paid with interest at 12% p.a. by way of compensation from the date of respective payments, till the date of realization along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-each. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: O R D E R Send the copy of this order to both the parties free of cost. This original order shall be kept in the file of the complaint No.361/2011 and a copy of it shall be placed in other complaint. (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 29th day of JULY – 2011.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT sCOMPLAINTS FILED ON: 23.02.2011 DISPOSED ON: 29.07.2011 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 29th DAY of JULY 2011 PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT Nos.361/2011 & 362/2011 | Complaint no.361/2011 Complainant Complaint no.362/2011 Complainant OPPOSITE PARTY | M.Sankappa Shetty (M.S.Shetty), S/o late M.Ashetty, Aged about 80 years, Residing at No.79/13, 18th Cross, 20th Main, M.C.Road, Vijayanagar, Bangalore-560 040. Smt.Vijayalakshmi Ballal D/o late Raghuram Ballal, Aged about 55years, Residing at No.79/13, 18th Cross, 20th Main, M.C.Road, Vijayanager, Bangalore. Advocate: Sri.Vittala Shetty P., V/s Kuvempu Nutana Madari Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Niyamita, No.755/20, 8th Cross Road, M.C.Layout, Vijayanagar Bangalore-560 040, Represented by its Secretary. Ex-parte. |
O R D E R SRI. B.S. REDDY, PRESIDENT These two complaints are filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, by the respective complainants seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund the amounts paid towards initial sital deposit with interest at 24% p.a. along with compensation on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. OP is common in both these complaints, the questions involved and the reliefs claimed being similar, in order to avoid the repetition of facts and multiplicity of reasoning’s both these complaints are stand disposed of by this common order. 2. In spite of service of notice by paper publication, OP failed to appear before the Forum without any reasonable cause hence placed ex-parte. 3. Both the complainants filed affidavit evidence in support of their complaint averments. 4. Arguments on complainant’s side heard. 5. We have gone through the complaint averments, the documents produced and affidavit evidence of the complainants. On the basis of complaint averments, affidavit evidence supported by the documentary evidence it becomes clear that in Complaint No.361/2011 the complainant paid an amount of Rs.10,102/- on 08.01.1988 which includes share fee and initial sital deposit and thereafter he has paid further amount of Rs.23,000/-. Thus the total amount paid by the complainant is Rs.32,102/- for allotment of site by OP. The site number being 710 measuring 40 X 60 feet in the layout of Mariyappanapaly Village, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore. The receipts produced are marked as Annexures A to D. 6. In Complaint No.362/2011 the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.10,102/- on 08.01.1988 towards share fee and initial sital deposit to the OP and further paid an amount of Rs.26,000/- under receipt dt.29.09.1994, thus the total amount of Rs.36,102/- is paid to the OP in respect of site No.701 measuring 40 X 60 feet in the same layout stated above. The receipts are produced and marked as Annexures-A, B and C. 7. These complainants were lured away with attractive broachures propaganda and colourable versions of OP’s with regard to allotment of sites in the proposed layout stated above. OP failed to fulfill its obligations in forming the proposed layout and failed to execute the sale deed. The complainants repeatedly visited the OP with a request to execute the sale deed but OP has not complied their demand. The complainants claim that they are entitled to receive damages as if the same amount were invested in some other property, they would have surely profited to the maximum extent. Both the complainants got issued legal notice, but the same was returned with a share that door locked and intimation delivered. The act of OP in not forming the proposed layout and executing the sale deed in favour of the complainants or refunding the amount received, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 8. The very fact of OP remaining ex-parte goes a long way to hold that OP is admitting the complaint allegations. There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged affidavit evidence of the complainants coupled with the documents produced. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainants are entitled for refund of the amount paid with interest at 12% p.a. by way of compensation from the date of respective payments, till the date of realization along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-each. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaints filed by the complainants are allowed in part. 1. In complaint No.361/1OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.33,102/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the respective date of payments, till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. In complaint No.362/2011 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.3,102/-with interest at 12% p.a. from the respective date of payments, till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of this order. Send the copy of this order to both the parties free of cost. This original order shall be kept in the file of the complaint No.361/2011 and a copy of it shall be placed in other complaint. (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 29th day of JULY – 2011.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Cs. |
