<br /> <br /> <br /> Date of Filing:21.02.2008<br /> Date of Order: 30.06.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 30th DAY OF JUNE 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. Bajentri H.M, B.A, LL.B., President<br /> Smt. C.V. Rajamma, B.Sc., LL.B., PGDPR, Member<br /> Sri. M. Nagabhushana, B.Com, LL.B., Member<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 480 OF 2008<br /> <br /> Sri. Patric T.R,<br /> No.98, Josephite Villa,<br /> Basavaraj Layout,<br /> Byrathi, Doddagubbi,<br /> BANGALORE – 562 149. …COMPLAINANT<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 485 OF 2008<br /> <br /> Sri. Gopal Krishna,<br /> No.54-G, 2nd Cross,<br /> 4th Block, B S K 3rd Stage,<br /> BANGALORE – 560 085. …COMPLAINANT<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 511 OF 2008<br /> <br /> Sri. H. Guruprasad,<br /> No.576, 7th Main Road,<br /> Vijayanagar, Bangalore – 560 040. …COMPLAINANT<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 517 OF 2008<br /> <br /> Sri. Banudas Biradar,<br /> No.106, Ratatha Peeta, 20th Cross,<br /> 7th Main, CHB Layout, Vijaya Nagar,<br /> BANGALORE – 560 040. …COMPLAINANT<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 530 OF 2008<br /> <br /> Miss. Reshma K.J.<br /> No.37/A, Nagarabhavi Main Road,<br /> Govindaraj Nagar, Vijaya Nagar,<br /> BANGALORE – 560 040. …COMPLAINANT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> - V/S -<br /> <br /> M/s. Megacity (Bangalore)<br /> Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd.,<br /> Mega Towers, No.120, K.H. Road, <br /> BANGALORE – 560 027. <br /> - Rep by its M.D - …OPPOSITE PARTY<br /> <br /> <br /> COMMON ORDER<br /> <br /> Since all these complaints involving common questions and claiming similar reliefs are directed against the same opposite party, they are disposed-off by this common order :-<br /> <br /> 2. The case of the complainants is as under :-<br /> The opposite party proposed to develop a residential layout called VAJRAGIRI TOWNSHIP on Mysore Road, Bangalore and to allot and sell the sites to the intending purchasers on payment of sale consideration in monthly installments. Impressed by the scheme, the complainants became members of the scheme, applied for a site of a particular dimension and paid the entire sale consideration. The dimensions of the sites applied for and the amount paid by each complainant is as under:-<br /> Sl. No Case No Applied For Amount Paid<br /> 01 480/2008 30’ X 40’ Rs.66,000/-<br /> 02 485/2008 30’ X 40’ Rs.54,600/-<br /> 03 511/2008 30’ X 40’ Rs.79,005/-<br /> 04 517/2008 30’ X 40’ Rs.73,200/-<br /> 05 530/2008 40’ X 60’ Rs.1,10,880/-<br /> <br /> 3. Inspite of payment of full sale consideration in monthly installments as per the terms and conditions of the scheme, the opposite party failed to allot site applied for and to execute registered sale deed. They issued legal Notice calling upon the opposite party to allot and execute registered sale deed in respect of the sites applied. The opposite party gave reply assigning untenable reasons. Hence, these complaints for a direction to the opposite party to allot and execute registered sale deed in-respect of the site applied for and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to each complainant. <br /> <br /> 4. In the version the contention of the opposite party is as under :-<br /> The Company was established for the purpose of developing lands for formation of residential layouts with Civic Amenities and to allot the same to the members. The Company entered into an agreement and the land-owners executed registered General Power of Attorney agreeing to sell various lands in different survey numbers of Seshagirihalli & Machanayakanahalli in Ramanagaram Taluk, & Krishnarajapura & Hampapura Villages in Bangalore South Taluk. When the project was taken up there were no legal hurdles for formation of the layout, but due to changed circumstances the Company is not in a position to complete the project as proposed. The Company applied for conversion of the lands purchased in Bannikuppe, Karenahalli & Thalagupe Village and also to obtain plan from the concerned authorities. After applying for conversion the Company came to know that the lands were notified by the KIADB for Industrial Development and therefore the Company could not form the layout. In these circumstances the Company is ready and willing to refund the advance amount paid by the complainants with Bank Rate of Interest. In Complaint No.517/2008, it is also contended by opposite party that the complainant has paid only Rs.55,453/- and as such having not paid the full sital value the complainant is not entitled to seek allotment and sale of site. It is also contended by the opposite party that the complaints are barred by time. On the above grounds the opposite party has prayed for dismissal of the complaints. <br /> <br /> 5. In support of the respective contentions both the parties have filed affidavits. We have heard the arguments on both sides.<br /> <br /> 6. The points for consideration are:-<br /> (a) Whether the complainants have proved deficiency<br /> in service on the part of the opposite party ?<br /> <br /> <br /> (b) Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed<br /> for in the respective complaints ?<br /> <br /> 7. Our findings are :-<br /> Point No.1:- In the affirmative except complaint <br /> No.517/2008. <br /> Point No.2:- As per final order.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 8. So far as Complaint No.517/2008 is concerned there is no denial of the fact that the complainant had applied for allotment and sale of a site measuring 30’ X 40’. From the copy of the Agreement to Sell dated: 15.03.1996 produced by the complainant, it is seen that the opposite party has agreed to sell a site measuring 30’ X 40’ for a consideration of Rs.66,000/- payable in 66 monthly installments. The agreement also stipulates that the cost of development & registration charges shall be borne by the purchaser. In Para-4 of the complaint the complainant has stated that he has paid total sum of Rs.73,200/- to the opposite party towards sital value. But, in the version the opposite party has contended that the complainant has paid only Rs.55,453/- and therefore a defaulter. The complainant has produced the copy of the receipt dated: 09.09.2000 under which he paid Rs.17,025/- to the opposite party. In this receipt it is also mentioned that the complainant is due amount towards seven installments and balance of development charges of Rs.7,547/-. No documents are produced by the complainant to show that subsequent to 09.09.2000 he made payment towards seven installments so also the balance of development charges of Rs.7,547/-. No documents are produced to show that he has paid total sum of Rs.73,200/- as contended in the complaint. In the absence of documents disclosing payments of Rs.73,200/- and having regard to the recitals in the receipt dated: 09.09.2000, we have no reason to disbelieve the contention of the opposite party that the complainant has paid only Rs.55,453/-. If that is so the complainant has not even paid the full sital value of Rs.66,000/- so also the amount due towards development charges as recited in the agreement to sell. Having not paid the full amount towards sital value and development charges the complainant is not entitled to allege deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and to claim allotment and sale of site from the opposite parties. Therefore, we hold that it is just and proper to direct the opposite party to refund the sum of Rs.55,453/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 10% per annum. Since the complainant has not even disclosed as to the dates on which he paid the amount it is only proper to direct the opposite party to pay interest on the amount paid from 09.09.2000 the date of last payment. <br /> <br /> 9. In so far as the other cases are concerned the opposite party has not denied that each complainant has made payment of certain amount towards land cost as well as development charges. The Account Statement dated: 30.05.2003 issued by the opposite party makes it is clear that the complainant in Case No.480/2008 has paid the entire amount towards sital value so also Development Charges, Registration & Miscellaneous Expenses. The receipt dated: 16.02.2005 produced in Complaint No.511/2008 also makes it clear that the complainant is not due any amount towards the sital value, development & other charges. However, from the Account Statement dated: 16.06.2003 produced in Case No.485/2008 and the receipt dated: 19.02.2000 produced in Case No.530/2008, it is seen that the complainants are due certain amount towards development charges. Therefore even in Complaint No.485/2008 & 530/2008 except a portion of development charges, the complainants have paid full sital value. Inspite of payment made by the complainants admittedly the opposite party has not allotted any site nor executed the sale deed. The contention of the opposite party in these cases is that after purchasing the lands in several villages it applied for conversion of the lands for Non-agricultural purposes and at that time the Company came to know that those lands are notified by KIADB for the purpose of Industrial development and it is in those circumstances it could not form the layout. In the version the opposite party has also stated that the Gazette Notification proposing acquisition of the land by KIADB is produced, but in fact the Gazette Notification is not at all produced. In the affidavit filed in lieu of evidence the complainants have stated that the layout was proposed to be formed in an area of 678 Acres, no authority has acquired any land in which A to H Blocks are formed. Even the BMICAPA accorded conversion for 99.33 Acres of land in between 24.10.2000 to 25.02.2004 and KIADB has proposed to acquire only 2.08 Acres of land situated Hampapura Village. However, no supporting document is also produced by the complainants. At any rate in the absence of material, we are unable to accept the contention of the opposite party that the KIABD acquired the entire land for the purpose of Industrial development. In these circumstances in our opinion, it is just and proper to direct the opposite party to allot and execute registered sale deed in-favour of each complainants, except complaint No.517/2008 subject to the complainants making payment of the balance amount if any to the opposite party. During arguments the learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the lands are involved in litigations as such the opposite party has no objection to execute sale deed in-favour of the complainants provided, the complainants are prepared to take the risk involved. Except contending that the land has been proposed for acquisition by KAIDB, no material is placed on record to show that any land is involved in litigation. If at all there is any litigation it is at the risk of the complainants that the opposite party has to execute the sale deeds. Non-allotment & non-execution of the sale deeds in-favour of the complainants in the above cases clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, we hold that in the above cases it is just and proper to direct the opposite party to execute sale deed in-respect of the site applied for by each complainant, subject to each complainants making payment of balance amount if any and subject to the complainants taking the risk if any involved. In the result, we pass the following :-<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 10. The opposite party shall refund Rs.55,453/- to the complainant in Case No.517/2008 with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from September-2000 till the date of payment. <br /> <br /> 11. Subject to the payment of balance amount, if any and subject to the complainants taking the risk if any involved, the opposite party shall allot and execute registered sale deed in respect of the site applied for by the complainants in Case No.480/2008, 485/2008, 511/2008 & 530/2008. The opposite party shall also pay costs of Rs.1,000/- to each complainant in all the cases. Compliance of this order shall be made within eight weeks from the date of communication. <br /> <br /> 12. The complainants in Case No.485/2008 & 530/2008 shall make payment of the balance amount to the opposite party within two weeks from the date of communication of this Order. <br /> <br /> <br /> 13. The Original of this Order shall be kept in Case No.480/2008 and a true copy of the Order shall be kept in each of the other cases.<br /> <br /> 04. Send a copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately.<br /> <br /> 05. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 30th DAY OF JUNE-2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br />