Date of Filing:16.11.2007<br /> Date of Order: 24.03.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2284 OF 2007 <br /> <br /> <br /> Mr. Obul Reddy.C,<br /> S/o C. Utha Reddy,<br /> R/at No.36/93, III Cross Road,<br /> BSK III Stage, III Phase, 6th Block, <br /> Bangalore-560 085. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> Megacity (Bangalore) Developers &<br /> Builders Ltd., Mega Tower, No.120, <br /> Kengal Hanumanthaiah Road, <br /> Bangalore-27.<br /> <br /> Corporate Office No.1, Chandralok,<br /> 5th Cross, Gandhinagar, <br /> Bangalore-09.<br /> <br /> Repd., by its Chairman & Managing Director<br /> C.P.Yogeshwara. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President, Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> The facts of the case are that, the opposite party advertised in the news paper that a scheme for forming layout of sites and same may be allotted to needy middle class people. The complainant became member of the opposite party and paid the membership fee on 17/6/1995. He went on paying the installment amount. On 9/8/1997 he paid the entire amount as per the demand of the opposite party. Agreement of sale executed on 21/9/1996. The amount received by the opposite party is Rs.47,440/-. The complainant has been demanding the opposite party to execute the sale deed. Several members of the scheme also approached the Forum. It is necessary to direct the opposite party to execute the sale deed and pay the damages.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. Notice served by RPAD. Opposite party put in appearance through advocate and filed defence version stating that, the opposite party is not in a position to execute the sale deed for various reasons. The opposite party has taken possession of land under the agreement of sale and also under the GPA, but the land was not converted as non-agricultural purposes. The layout has not been approved. There were various legal hurdles in forming the layout. The owners of the lands have sold and execute registered sale deed in favour of third persons and the opposite party has filed a suit for specific performance in the Civil Courts against the owners of the land and the suits are pending. So, for all these reasons, the opposite party is not in a position to form the layout and allot the sites in favour of the members. However, during the course of argument the learned counsel for the opposite party conceded and accepted that the opposite party is ready to pay the amount with interest and compensation as ordered by the Hon’ble State Commission. <br /> 3. Affidavit evidence of both the parties filed. Arguments are heard. <br /> 4. In the light of the argument advanced, the following point arises for my consideration. <br /> Whether the opposite party can be directed to refund the amount with interest and compensation? if so, what would be the compensation?<br /> <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 5. The learned advocate for the opposite party has produced certified copy of the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 6th December-2007 in Appeal No.1779/2007 C/W Appeal Nos. 1980 to 2057 of 2007 and other connected cases in Smt. Sudha V/S Megacity Developers. The above batch of appeals came to be disposed off by the Hon’ble State Commission with a direction to the opposite party to refund the amount paid by the respective complaints with interest at 9% p.a and also to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to each of the complainants and the opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to each of the complainant towards costs of the litigation. So, in view of the above judgment rendered by the Hon’ble State Commission the same principle is also applicable to the facts of the present case. The opposite party in this case is also Megacity Developers and Builders. Since there are so many legal hurdles in forming the layout, therefore the opposite party is not in a position to form the layout and allot the sites. Therefore, the only remedy and relief that could be granted to the complainant is refund of amount with interest and compensation. Since the matter is already decided and covered by the judgment of State Commission, it is not necessary for me to discuss the issue in detail. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, I feel it would be just fair and reasonable to direct the opposite party to refund the amount with interest and compensation. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 47,440/- to the complainant. The complainant is entitled to interest at 10% p.a from 21/11/1998 (last payment) on the deposit amount till realization. The opposite party is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- in addition to the above amount. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the present litigation. The opposite party is directed to pay the entire amount to the complainant within 15 days from the date of order by way of D.D or Cheque with intimation to this Forum. <br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2008.<br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />