COMPLAINT FILED: 29.04.2009 <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 25th AUGUST 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.985/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Mas. S.Lakshmi Narayan,<br /> Aged about 8 years,<br /> A Minor represented by his<br /> Mother and Natural Guardian,<br /> Smt. M.Saraswathi,<br /> Aged 38 years,<br /> W/o N.K. Subramani,<br /> Presently residing at<br /> No.1-A, Susho Sona Flats,<br /> Senathipathi Street,<br /> Kamakshi Nagar,<br /> Valasaravakkam,<br /> Chennai – 600 087.<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Sri. Loganathan,<br /> Aged about 61 years,<br /> Proprietor M/s Indra Plot and<br /> Land Developers,<br /> Residing at No.43/5,<br /> Jeevanhally Main Road,<br /> Hirachand Layout,<br /> Cox Town,<br /> Bangalore – 560 005.<br /> <br /> Advocate: Sri M.Thyagaraj<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<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 execute a registered sale deed in respect to the site allotted and pay a compensation and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> 2. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under.<br /> <br /> 3. Complainant being lured away with the advertisement and propaganda as well as publicity issued by the OP who claims to be a land developers engaged in formation of the residential layouts consisting of sites of various dimensions in and around Bangalore thought of purchasing a plot in the project floated by the OP in the name and style of ‘Ganesh Garden’. Complainant opted to purchase a plot measuring 30’ X 40’ and agreed to pay sital value in 50 months at the rate of Rs.1,200/- per month. Complainant did make payment of all the installments by the end of June 2006. Thereafter inspite of his repeated requests and demands OP failed to allotted the site and register the same. Though complainant invested his hard earned money he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment. The OP executed the sale deeds in favour of other members but failed to keep up its promise, as far as complainant is concerned. Thus complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under such circumstances he is advised to file this complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP they commenced the said project in the year 2002, where as the complainant joined the said project and scheme in July 2004. The allotment of the sites to the members depends on so many terms and conditions. Complainant cannot insist the OP to allot site and register a site ignoring seniority of other members out of turn. Complainant is required to pay the betterment charges and other expenses. Inspite of repeated demands made by the OP to pay the other incidental charges, conversion charges, betterment charges the complainant failed to head to the said demand. Under the circumstances OP is unable to execute the sale deed. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Because of the ban imposed by the Government in registering the revenue site there was some delay. Complainant is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 5. 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 /> 6. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<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 entitled <br /> for the relief now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No.3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> 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:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative. <br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part. <br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 8. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant became the member of the project floated by the OP in the name and style ‘Ganesh Garden’ and opted to purchase a site measuring 30’ X 40’. OP after accepting his membership collected the sital value in installments to the tune of Rs.60,000/- till the end of June – 2006. Thereafter some how OP failed to allot a site and register a site in favour of the complainant. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 9. As against this it is contended by the OP that complainant joined the said scheme in the middle of the scheme which was commenced in the year 2002. If OP is not interested to consider his membership and allot him to site, it would not have accepted the sital value. Under such circumstances that defence of the OP does not hold force. Further is stated by the OP that the said layout is formed in an agricultural land and there was a problem with regard to conversion of the said land one from agricultural to non agricultural purpose. If that is so without getting the said conversion why OP opted to float the said project, invited the members collected sital value is not known. So that approach of the OP does not appears to be fair and honest. <br /> <br /> 10. The whole of the defence of the OP appears to be unfair and unjust. It is further stated by the OP that the Government has imposed ban on registering the revenue sites. After removal of the said ban at least, OP would have come forward and allotted a site and registered the site in favour of complainant, but no steps are taken. If the OP is of the view that the said area now comes under the jurisdiction of the BBMP, naturally the other betterment charges has to be paid. In our view it is the look out of the complainant and the complainant has to fallow the rules and regulations with regard to regularization of the said site when once it is registered in his favour. With all that OP to the reasons best known to it after collecting the entire sital value exibitted the hostile attitude. If complainant want to take risk in purchase of revenue site from OP it is for him to face legal consequences. <br /> <br /> 11. As could be seen from the pleadings of the parties OP did execute the sale deed in favour of the other members of the said project. When that is so why the said benefit is not given to the complainant is not known. OP wants to breath hot and cold to the reasons best known to it. The evidence of the complainant finds full corroboration with the contents of the un disputed documents, it appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake. <br /> <br /> 12. 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. OP having retained the said huge amount accrued wrong full gain to self there by caused wrong full loss to the complainant. Hence, for this simple reason we find complainant deserves relief’s claimed to some extent. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 and 2 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 measuring 30’ X 40’ in their project noted in the name and style ‘Ganesh Garden’ and execute a register sale deed in favour of the complainant, after collecting the necessary Registration charges, Stamp duty etc as contemplated from the complainant and put him in actual possession of the site. <br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within two months from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> In view of the nature of dispute, no order as to costs. <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 25th day of August 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> s.n.m. <br /> <br />