COMPLAINT FILED: 29.05.2009 <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 25TH SEPTEMBER 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1235/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Mr. D.Mohanlal,<br /> S/o Late Dhanara Jain,<br /> Aged about 64 years,<br /> R/at No.84, T.H. Road,<br /> New Washermanpet,<br /> Chennai – 600 081.<br /> <br /> Advocate: Sri S.Yathiraj<br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY M/s Mega City (Bangalore),<br /> Developers and Builders Pvt. Ltd.,<br /> Rptd: by its Managing Director,<br /> No.1, Chandralok,<br /> 5th Cross, Gandhinagar,<br /> Bangalore – 560 009.<br /> <br /> Advocate: Sri R.Tharesh<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 the registered sale deed with respect to the site allotted to him 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 /> 3. Complainant being lured away with the publicity given by the OP who claims to be developer and builders of residential layout consisting of sites of various dimensions in and around Bangalore, thought of becoming member of the project floated by the OP in the name and style ‘Vajragiri Township’ and opted to purchase a site measuring 60’ X 100’. OP accepted his membership and allotted him one plot and executed an agreement of sale dated 15.03.1996. Complainant paid 66 EMI of Rs.5,000/- each, i.e. Rs.3,30,000/- from 13.01.1996 to 15.11.2000 towards the cost of the site. Further complainant paid Rs.36,000/- towards development charges on 05.05.2009 in all complainant paid Rs.3,66,000/- to OP. Copy of the sale agreement, receipts issued by the OP are produced. Even after paying the entire cost of the site OP failed to respond properly. Complainant got issued legal notice to OP requesting to execute and register the sale deed. Inspite of service of notice OP failed to respond. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly. <br /> <br /> 4. On appearance, OP filed the version mainly contending that in order to form the residential layout OP is required to obtain permission from various authorities namely Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, BMRDA, BMICAPA. When OP took up the project there were no legal hurdles for the formation of the layout but after applying for the conversion of the land OP came to know that the land is notified by the KIADB for the purpose of industrial development. Due to change in circumstances OP is not in a position to complete the project and not in a position to form the layout and execute the sale deed. Complaint is barred by limitation. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence OP is ready to refund the amount to the complainant. On these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 5. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence, 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’s 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:- Affirmative. <br /> <br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part.<br /> <br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order. <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 ‘Vajragiri Township’ and intended to purchase a site measuring 60’ X 100’. OP accepted his membership and allotted one plot and executed agreement of sale deed on 15.03.1996. Complainant paid 66 EMI of Rs.5,000/- each from 13.01.1996 to 15.11.2000, towards the cost of the site. Further complainant paid Rs.36,000/- towards developmental charges on 05.05.2005. In all complainant paid Rs.3,66,000/- to OP. The receipts issued by the OP are produced. <br /> 9. The evidence of the complainant which finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant the defence set out by the OP appears to defence for defence sake. According to OP due to legal hurdles they are unable to complete the said project in time. <br /> <br /> 10. It is further contended by the OP that they did acquire required quantity of agricultural land for the formation of the said layout. Because of the intervention of the BMRDA and BMICAPA and so also as the Deputy Commissioner of Bangalore Rural district did not issue no objection certificate for the conversion of the agricultural land into non-agricultural purpose, they are unable to complete the project. Further land is notified by the KIADB for the purpose of industrial development. Hence OP has not completed the said project even though they received entire sital value from the complainant in the year 2000. <br /> <br /> 11. Complainant invested his hard earned money to purchase a site of his choice unfortunately he his unable to reap the fruits of his investment. It is all because of the carelessness and negligence on the part of the OP. It appears in a nearest future OP is not going to complete the said project. We cannot direct the complainant keep waiting for the registration of the site indefinitely. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case in our view justice will be met by directing the OP to refund the sital value with interest. <br /> <br /> 12. Of course OP has contended that the complaint is barred by time. We find no force in the said defence for the simple reasons that when OP has accepted the membership of the complainant allotted him a site collected the sital value in the year 2000 they did not complete the project in time and register the site free from encumbrance in favour of the complainant, hence complainant will get a recurring cause of action. The other defence of the OP appears to be baseless.<br /> <br /> 13. We are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. OP having retained the said amount without registering the site and putting the complainant in possession of the site for all these years accrued wrongful gain to self and caused wrongful loss to the complainant that too for no fault of his. For these reasons we find complainant deserves the alternative relief of refund of sital value. 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. <br /> <br /> OP is directed to refund Rs.3,66,000/- with 12% interest p.a. from December 2000 till realization and pay a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. <br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication. <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 September 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Snm:<br />