Date of Filing: 21st & 22nd .02.2008<br /> Date of Order: 07.07.2008<br /> BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 7th DAY OF JULY 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT<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 /> COMPLAINT NO. 478 OF 2008<br /> Sri. Gururaj Bhat U.L,<br /> R/at: No.106, ‘Rajatha Peeta’,<br /> 20th Cross, CHBS Layout,<br /> Vijaya Nagar,<br /> Bangalore-560 040. …. Complainant.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 507 OF 2008<br /> Sri. Jagadeeshwara Gupta,<br /> R/at: 14/416, Kamala Nagar,<br /> Anantapur-515 001,<br /> Andhra Pradesh,<br /> Rep. by GPA Holder:<br /> Mr. M.S. Vishwanath. …. Complainant.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 518 OF 2008<br /> Sri. Palvannan K,<br /> R/at: No.77, 3rd Main Road,<br /> ‘ZEENAT MANZIL’,<br /> Kausarnagar, R.T. Nagar Post,<br /> Bangalore-560 032. …. Complainant.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 535 OF 2008<br /> Smt. Sudha N. Rao,<br /> R/at: No.106, ‘Rajatha Peeta’,<br /> 20th Cross, CHBS Layout,<br /> Opp: BDA Complex,<br /> Vijaya Nagar,<br /> Bangalore-560 040. …. Complainant.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 537 OF 2008<br /> Sri. Money Narayanna Jambunath,<br /> R/at: No.003, Sovereign Park,<br /> Apartments, 56, K.R. Road,<br /> Basavanagudi,<br /> BANGALORE-560 004.<br /> Rep. by his GPA holder:<br /> Nagalath N.V. …. Complainant.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 538 OF 2008<br /> Sri. Nagaraj Rao,<br /> R/at: 110, 7th ‘A’ Cross,<br /> 2nd ‘A’ Main, <br /> Preethi Nagar, Luggere, <br /> Bangalore-560 058. …. Complainant.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 539 OF 2008<br /> Smt. Veena Anantharam. A,<br /> R/at: No.110, 7th ‘A’ Cross,<br /> 2nd ‘A’ Main,<br /> Preethi Nagar, Luggere,<br /> Bangalore-560 058. …. Complainant.<br /> <br /> -V/s-<br /> <br /> M/s. Megacity (Bangalore)<br /> Developers and Builders Pvt. Ltd.,<br /> Mega Towers, No.120, K.H. Road,<br /> Bangalore-560 027.<br /> Rep. by its Managing Director. …. Opposite Party.<br /> COMMON ORDER<br /> Since all these complaints involving common questions and seeking similar relief are directed against the same opposite party they are disposed off by this common order. The case of the complainants is as under:-<br /> The opposite party proposed to form a residential layout called “VAJRAGIRI TOWNSHIP” on Mysore Road in Bangalore, to allot and sell the residential sites to the members of the Scheme on payment of the sital value in monthly installments. Impressed by the offer made by the opposite party the complainants became members of the Scheme, applied for allotment of site of a particular dimension and paid certain amounts towards sital value. The Society also allotted a particular site in favour of each complainant. The dimension of the site applied for, site allotted and the amount paid by each complainant is as under:-<br /> Sl.No. Case No. Dimension of the site applied Site Allotted Amount paid<br /> 1. 478/2008 30 X 40 feet No.222,‘C’ Block Rs.48,000/- & Other charges<br /> 2. 507/2008 30 X 40 feet No.551,’C’ Block Rs.66,000/- & Other charges<br /> 3. 518/2008 40 X 60 feet No.449,’C’ Block Rs.96,000/- & Other charges<br /> 4. 535/2008 45.5 X 52.75 feet No.395,’C’ Block Rs.1,32,000/- & Other charges<br /> 5. 537/2008 120 X 80 feet No.198,’A’ Block Rs.6,61,750/- & Other charges<br /> 6. 538/2008 40 X 30 feet No.221,’C’ Block Rs.48,000/- & Other charges<br /> 7. 539/2008 42.5 X 30 feet No.566,’C’ Block Rs.70,125/- & Other charges<br /> <br /> It is contended that in spite of payment of full sital value and other charges and issuance of Possession Certificate the opposite party failed to execute registered sale deed in favour of the complainants. The repeated demands and requests in that regard went in vain. The opposite party also did not respond to the legal notices issued. Hence these complaints for a direction to the opposite party to execute registered sale deed in favour of the complainants in respect of the allotted sites and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.<br /> <br /> 2. In the version among other ground the opposite party has contended that, the sites allotted in favour of the complainants in Complaint Nos. 478, 537 & 538 of 2008 in ‘C’ Block and in ‘A’ Block have been formed in Survey No.16 of K.R. Pura Village. The sites allotted in favour of the complainants in Complaint Nos. 507, 518, 535 & 539 of 2008 have been formed in Survey Nos. 14, 19 & 21 of K.R. Pura Village. The company had entered into an agreement with the owner of the land bearing Survey No.16, but subsequently the land owner sold the same land in favour of the third parties and therefore the company has filed O.S. No.528/2006 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ramanagaram and the same is pending. In Complaint No.537/2008 it is also contended that after entering into agreement with the land owners of Survey No.16 measuring one acre seven guntas the Company applied for conversion of the land, but the same was refused by the Special Deputy Commissioner as per the order dated: 25.04.2003. However in this case it is not stated that, the land owner has sold the same land in favour of the third party. So far as Survey Nos. 14, 19 & 21 of K.R. Pura Village is concerned, the opposite party has stated that, those lands have been transferred in favour of the Company and when the Company applied for approval of the plan to BMICAPA the same was refused on the ground that, those lands have no proper access. It is contended that in the above circumstances, the Company could not execute registered sale deed in favour of the complainants and therefore it is ready and willing to refund the amount paid by the complainants with Bank rate of interest.<br /> <br /> 3. In support of the respective contentions, both the parties have filed affidavits. Though the opposite party has referred to several documents in the version none of those documents are produced. We have heard the arguments on both sides.<br /> <br /> 4. The points for consideration are:-<br /> (1) Whether the complainants Have proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> <br /> (2) Whether the complainants entitled to the relief prayed for in the respective complaints?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings on the above points are:-<br /> POINT NO.1:- In the affirmative except C.No.539/2008.<br /> POINT No.2:- As per the final order<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> POINT Nos. 1 & 2:-<br /> 6. In Complaint.No.539/2008 except the copies of the letter addressed by the opposite party the complainant has not produced any documents such as receipts to substantiate the contention that he has paid Rs.70,125/- towards cost of the site and other charges payable to the opposite party. In the letter dated: 28.01.2000 sent by the opposite party the cost of the site is mentioned as Rs.70,125/-. The amount paid by the complainant towards cost of the site is mentioned as Rs.63,900/- discount of 10% amounting to Rs.2,100/- is given and thereafter it is stated that the complainant is still due Rs.4,125/- towards costs of the site besides developmental charges and miscellaneous expenses. In the letter dated: 10.10.2000 the amount due towards cost of the site is mentioned as Rs.2,125/- It is also mentioned that the complainant is liable to pay Rs.12,750/- towards development charges and Rs.3,000/- towards miscellaneous expenses. No material is produced to show that subsequent to 10.10.2000 the complainant paid the amount claimed in the letter dated: 10.10.2000. If that is so, it is clear that the complainant has not even paid the full cost of the site besides the development and other charges. Without paying even the full cost of the site the complainant is not entitled to allege deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and to claim registration of sale deed. Therefore, we hold that, the complainant in Complaint No.539/2008 has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and therefore not entitled to seek registration of sale deed. In the circumstances, in our opinion, it is appropriate to direct the opposite party to refund the amount paid by the complainant with interest at the rate of 10% per annum.<br /> <br /> 7. In the other cases we find that except in Complaint Nos. 518 & 538/2008 the complainants in other cases have paid full amount towards cost of the site, development and other charges. The complainants in Complaint Nos. 518 & 538 of 2008 have not paid a part of the amount towards development charges. However they have paid full cost of the site. Therefore before seeking registration of the sale deed the complainants in Complaint Nos. 518 & 538 of 2008 will have to pay the balance of development charges due. Thus it is seen that the complainants in Complaint Nos. 478, 507, 535, 537 of 2008 have paid the entire amount due and payable to the opposite party and only a portion of developmental charges is payable by the complainants in Complaint Nos. 518 & 538 of 2008. In spite of it, the opposite party failed to execute registered sale deed in favour of those complainants in respect of the sites allotted. This omission on the part of the opposite party clearly amounts to deficiency in service. No documents are produced by the opposite party in support of its contention that the owners have created third party interest in respect of survey No.16 or that the competent authorities refused to approve the plan in respect of survey Nos. 14, 19, & 21 of K.R. Pura Village. It is interesting to note that, in Complaint Nos. 478 & 538 of 2008 the opposite party has stated that, it has filed O.S. No.528/2006 in respect of survey No.16 of K.R. Pura Village, since the land owner has created third party interest. But in Complaint No. 537/2008 there is no mention of the pending suit in respect of survey No. 16, nor it stated that, the owner has sold the same land to a third party. On the other hand in that case the opposite party has stated that the Special Deputy Commissioner refused conversion of the said land for non-agricultural purposes. Thus in respect of the same land the opposite party has maintained two stands in different cases. The opposite party has not even produced the copy of the plaint in O.S. No.528/2006 to show that it pertains to survey No.16 of K.R. Pura Village. It is not even disclosed when the land owner sold the same land in favour of the third party. Contrary to the stand in the version, in the letter dated: 01.08.2002 produced in Complaint No.537/2008 the opposite party has assured execution and registration of the sale deed in respect of the sites in ‘A’ Block by the middle of November-2002. It is stated in this letter that the delay in registration of the sale deeds is caused as the concerned authorities called for further clarifications such as revising the layout plan, leaving more space for civic amenities and other related documents and that the approval is expected shortly. It may be mentioned here that site No.198 in ‘A’ Block allotted in favour of the complainant in Complaint No.537/2008 is also stated to be formed out of survey No.16. On the face of the assurance given by the opposite party in the letter dated: 01.08.2002 it becomes difficult to believe that either the Deputy Commissioner refused conversion of the land in survey No.16 or that the land owner has created third party interest. If in fact the opposite party has filed O.S. 528/2006 in respect of survey No.16 the complainants who have been allotted sites formed in survey No.16 will have to take the risk involved in the matter. Nothing is produced by the opposite party to show that the concerned authorities refused approval of the plan in respect of the site formed in survey Nos. 14, 19, & 21 of K.R. Pura Village. For the reasons stated above, we are unable to make out that due to the circumstances beyond its control the opposite party could not execute sale deed in favour of the complainants in respect of the sites allotted. Therefore, we hold that, it is just and proper to direct the opposite party to execute sale deed in favour of the complainants in Complaint Nos. 478, 507, 518, 535, 537 & 538 of 2008 in respect of the site allotted. In the result we pass the following:- <br /> ORDER<br /> 8. In Complaint No.539 OF 2008 the opposite party shall refund the amount paid by the complainant with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of respective deposits till the date of payment. The parties shall bear their own costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> 9. In Complaint Nos. 478, 507, 518, 535, 537 & 538 of 2008 the opposite party shall execute registered sale deed in favour of the complainants in respect of the sites allotted. The complainants in Complaint Nos. 518 & 538 of 2008 shall make payment of the balance amount due and payable to the opposite party towards developmental and other charges within two weeks. The opposite party shall pay costs of Rs.1,000/- to each complainant.<br /> <br /> 10. Compliance of this order shall be made within eight weeks from the date of communication. <br /> <br /> 11. The original of this order shall be kept in Complaint No.478/2008 and a true copy of the order shall be kept in each of the other cases.<br /> <br /> 12. Send a copy of this order to both the parties free of costs immediately.<br /> <br /> 13 Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 7th DAY OF JULY 2008.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br />