<br /> <br /> Date of Filing: 21.02.2008<br /> Date of Order: 07.07.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <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 /> <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: 479 OF 2008<br /> <br /> Sri. A. Hiruthaya Swamy,<br /> No.14, Krishna North Vilas,<br /> Ramachandra Pura, Jalahalli Post,<br /> BANGALORE – 560 013. …COMPLAINANT<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 483 OF 2008<br /> <br /> Sri. Pais V.J.G,<br /> Madonna, Jayanagar,<br /> CHIKKAMAGALUR – 577 101. …COMPLAINANT<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 490 OF 2008<br /> <br /> Geetha Venkatagiriyappa,<br /> Geetha Nivasa, Achutha Rao Layout, <br /> A.N.R. Road, <br /> SHIMOGA – 577 201. …COMPLAINANT<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 519 OF 2008<br /> <br /> Sri. Harsha K. Guptha,<br /> Ajantha Digitals,<br /> No.235, S.C. Road,<br /> BANGALORE – 560 009. …COMPLAINANT<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 520 OF 2008<br /> Sri. Ravi S. Rao,<br /> No.183, Ramakrishna Nagar,<br /> 4th Block, Nandini Layout,<br /> BANGALORE – 560 096.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> - V/S -<br /> <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 /> All these complaints involving common questions and claiming similar reliefs are directed against the same opposite party. Therefore, they are disposed-off by this common order. <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. The case of the complainant is as under :-<br /> The opposite party proposed to form a residential Layout called VAJRAGIRI TOWNSHIP on Mysore Road, Bangalore. It also proposed to allot and sell house site to the members of the scheme on payment of sale consideration in monthly installments. All the complainants became members of the scheme, applied for a site of a particular dimension and made certain payments. The dimension of the site applied for, the site allotted to each of them and the amount paid by each complainant is as under :-<br /> Case No Applied for Site allotted Amount Paid<br /> 479/2008 60’ X 40’ Site No.51 in ‘G’ Block Rs.96,000/- &<br /> other charges<br /> 483/2008 54.25’ X 60’ Site No.232 in ‘G’ Block Rs.1,30,200/-<br /> 490/2008 60’ X 40’ Site No.383 in ‘G’ Block Rs.1,42,000/-<br /> 519/2008 40’ X 60’ Site No.381 in ‘G’ Block Rs.96,000/- &<br /> other charges<br /> 520/2008 30’ X 40’ Site No.04 in ‘G’ Block Rs.48,000/-<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 3. Inspite of receiving full sital value in monthly installments, inspite of repeated requests and demands the opposite party failed to execute registered sale deed in-favour of the complainants in respect of the sites allotted. It also did not respond to the Legal Notice issued. Hence, these complaints for a direction to the opposite party to execute registered sale deed in respect of the site allotted and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to each complainant. <br /> <br /> 4. In the version among other grounds the opposite party has contended that the sites in “G” Block of Vajragiri Township allotted in-favour of complainants have been formed out of Survey No.106, 107 & 110 of Talagupe Village, Bedadi Hobli, Ramanagaram Taluk. Survey No.107 had been notified by the KIADB for development of the Industries and therefore the opposite party is not in a position to secure the conversion and to execute sale deed in-favour of the complainants. It is stated that the Company is ready and willing to refund the amount paid by the complainants with Bank Rate of Interest. <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 so far as Complaint <br /> Nos.479 & 490/2008 are concerned &<br /> in the negative in respect of the other <br /> Complaints.<br /> <br /> Point No.3. As per final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 8. Point No.1:-<br /> No doubt in the version the opposite party has not stated anything with regard to amount paid by the complainants, but when the complainants have approached the Forum alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and contending that each of them have paid entire sital value, they are required to produce the supporting documents. In Case No.483 of 2008 the complainant claims to have paid Rs.1,30,200/-, but not even a single receipt is produced to support that contention. As per the copy of the agreement to sell dated: 25.07.1995 produced in that case, the opposite party had agreed to sell a site measuring 40’ X 60’ for a consideration of Rs.96,000/- excluding the development and other charges. The Possession Certificate is issued in respect of a site measuring 54.25’ X 60’. Therefore, the dimension of the site allotted is more than the dimension of the site agreed to be sold. When the complainant claims that he has paid Rs.1,30,200/- he was required to produce documents in support of that contention. When no documents are produced, it goes without saying that the complainant has not proved that contention. Without proving that he has paid the entire sital value the complainant is not entitled to allege deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party or to claim execution of sale deed from the opposite party. <br /> <br /> 9. From the documents produced in Case No.519/2008, it is seen that through the letter dated: 23.04.2003 the opposite party informed the complainant that he is due Rs.12,400/- towards site costs and Rs.13,280/- towards development charges in all Rs.25,680/-. Nothing is produced to show that subsequent to 23.04.2003 the complainant paid either Rs.12,400/- towards site cost or Rs.13,280/- towards development charges. Therefore, when the complainant has not paid the full cost of the site he cannot allege deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and claim execution of sale deed.<br /> <br /> 10. In Case No.520/2008 also through the letters dated: 24.12.1999 & 07.3.2000 the opposite party informed the complainant that he is due Rs.1,680/- towards cost of the site. Nothing is produced to show that subsequent to 07.03.2000 the complainant paid Rs.1,680/- towards the cost of the site. No material is also produced to show that the complainant has paid development charges and other charges payable to the opposite party. When the complainant has not even paid the full sital cost he cannot allege deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and claim executing of sale deed. Therefore, we hold that the complainants in Case No.483/2008, 519/2008 & 520/2008 have failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and not entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint. <br /> <br /> 11. So far as complaint No.479/2008 & 490/2008 are concerned in the receipt dated: 29.01.2002 produced in Case No.490/2008 the amount payable towards cost of the site and development charges is shown as ‘nil’. Therefore, the complainant in that case has paid the full amount towards site cost and development charges payable to the opposite party. In complaint No.479/2008 as per the letter dated: 10.12.2001 the complainant has paid the cost of the site in full and he is due Rs.11,622/- towards development charges. In view of the fact that he has paid the full amount towards the cost of the site, we hold that he is entitled to claim execution of the sale deed subject to payment of balance of development charges. We hold that non-execution of the sale deed in-favour of the complainants in Case Nos.479/2008 & 490/2008 amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. <br /> <br /> 12. The ground urged by the opposite party in the version as to the reason for not-executing sale deed in-favour of the complainants is that the sites allotted to the complainants are formed out of Survey Nos.106, 107 & 110 of Talagupe Village and out of those lands Survey No.107 was notified by KIADB for development of Industries and therefore it is not in a position to secure conversion of the lands and to execute sale deed in-favour of the complainants. Even according to the opposite party the sites in “G” Block are formed out of Survey No.106, 107 & 110 of Talagupe Village and only Survey No.107 has been proposed to be acquired by KIADB. In the affidavit filed in support of the claim the complainant in Case No.479/2008 has stated that KIADB has issued Gazette Notification only in respect of 2.08 Acres of land. If that is so the opposite party has not explained why it failed to form the sites in the other two survey numbers and to execute sale deed in-favour of the complainants. In the version the opposite party claims to have produced the Gazette Notification issued by KIADB, but in fact the said document is not produced. In these circumstances, we are not convinced with the reason given by the opposite party for not-executing sale deed in-favour of the complainants. Therefore, it is just and proper to direct the opposite party to execute sale deed in-favour of the complainants in Case No.479/2008 & 490/2008. <br /> <br /> 13. So far as Case Nos.519/2008 & 520/2008 are concerned as stated earlier, since the complainants have not have even paid the entire cost of the site they are not entitled to seek execution of the sale deed. In Case No.493/2008 the complainant has not produced any material to support the contention that he has paid Rs.1,30,200/-. Therefore, he is also not entitled to seek execution of sale deed by the opposite party. In these circumstances, we hold that it is just and proper to direct the opposite party to refund the amount paid by each complainant in those cases with interest. In the result, we pass the following :-<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> <br /> 14. The opposite party shall execute registered sale deed in-favour of the complainants in Case Nos.479/2008 & 490/2008 in respect of the site allotted or any other site of the same dimension. The complainant in Case No.479/2008 shall pay the balance amount due towards development and other charges payable to the opposite party within two weeks. Opposite party shall also pay costs of Rs.1,000/- to each complainant.<br /> <br /> 15. In Case Nos.483/2008, 519/2008 & 520/2008 the opposite party shall refund the amount paid by each complainant with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of receipts till the date of payment. The parties shall bear their own costs.<br /> <br /> 16. The Original of this Order shall be kept in Case No.479/2008 and a true copy of the Order shall be kept in each of the other cases.<br /> <br /> 17. Send a copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately.<br /> <br /> 18. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 7th DAY OF JULY-2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br />