<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: 503 OF 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> Smt. K. Shashikala.<br /> No.11, ASHIRWAD, CHBS,<br /> 2nd Phase, 2nd Stage, 12th Main,<br /> Vijayanagara Post,<br /> BANGALORE – 560 040. …COMPLAINANT<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 505 OF 2008<br /> <br /> Sri. V. Jayaraman,<br /> Flat No.31, Building No.49,<br /> Goodwill Apartments,<br /> Attiguppe, Near Chandra Layout,<br /> BANGALORE – 560 040. …COMPLAINANT<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. …OPPOSITE PARTY<br /> - Rep by its Managing Director -<br /> <br /> COMMON ORDER<br /> <br /> Since both these complaints for similar reliefs are directed against the same opposite party, they are disposed-off by this common order :-<br /> <br /> 2. With intention to purchase a site in “VAJRAGIRI TOWNSHIP” formed by the opposite party. The complainant in Case No.503/2008 paid Rs.2,45,340/- as sale consideration for a site measuring 60’ x 54’. The complainant in Case No.505/2008 paid Rs.1,43,040/- as sale consideration for site measuring 40’ x 60’. Since the opposite party failed to allot and execute registered sale deed in respect of the site applied for, the complainants demanded refund of the amount paid. Accordingly, the opposite party refunded certain amount to the complainant in Case No.503/2008. (It may be stated that in complaint No.503/2008, in Para No.5 the amount refunded and the date of refund is left blank. Though it is also stated that the copy of the letter is produced as Exhibit-C that document is also not produced). The opposite party refunded Rs.1,72,700/- to the complainant in Case No.505/2008 by the cheque dated: 28.02.2005 along with covering letter dated: 16.02.2005. (In Para No.6 of the complainant in Case No.505/2008, it is stated that the letter dated: 16.02.2005 is produced as Exhibit-H, but the said document is not produced along with the complaint or along with the affidavit filed in lieu of evidence). Alleging that the opposite party failed to pay interest on the amount refunded, each complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- from the opposite party. In Complaint No.503/2008 it is stated in Para-6 that the sum of Rs.15,00,000/- claimed includes Rs.7,76,199/- towards interest till 25.11.2007. In Complaint No.505/2008 it is stated that the amount claimed includes Rs.5,73,112/- towards interest till 15.11.2007. In both the complainants, the complainants have prayed for a direction to opposite party to pay interest at 18% on the amount form the date of payment till realization and compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.<br /> <br /> 3. In the version in Complaint No.503/2008 the opposite party has not met with the allegations in the complaint. It has only explained as to the reason for not forming the layout and not executing the sale deed in-favour of the complainant. It has not stated anything with regard to the amount refunded to the complainant and about the claim made in the complaint. So far as 505/2008 is concerned, it is contended by the opposite party that the complainant has received the amount in full and final settlement and therefore the complainant is not entitled to claim any amount.<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 point for consideration is :- <br /> (a) Whether the complainants entitled to the relief <br /> prayed for in the respective complaint ?<br /> <br /> 7. Our finding is in the negative for the following reasons :-<br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 8. So far as Complaint No.503/2008 is concerned, the complainant claims to have paid Rs.2,45,340/- as consideration for a site measuring 60’ x 54’ and also admits for having received certain amount from the opposite party towards refund. But in Para-5 of the complaint the particulars of amount refunded, the date of refund are left blank. No specific averment is made as to the date from which the complainant is entitled to claim interest on the amount refunded. Though in Para-6 of the complaint it is stated that the amount claimed includes Rs.7,76,199/- towards interest till 25.11.2007, the particulars of calculation made for claiming the same are not furnished. The prayer column is also vague so far as claim for interest is concerned. In the absence of those particulars, we are unable to make out as to the amount on which the complainant claims interest and the date from which such interest is claimed. Therefore, we are unable to uphold the contention of the complainant that, he is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- from the opposite party as claimed in Para- 6 of the complaint or any other amount.<br /> <br /> 9. So far as Complaint No.505/2008 is concerned, in Para-4 of the complaint it is specifically stated that, the complainant has paid Rs.1,43,040/- as consideration for a site measuring 40’ x 60’. In Para-6 of the complaint the complainant has stated that he received Rs.1,72,700/- as refund from the opposite party. Therefore the amount refunded by the opposite party is in excess of the amount paid by the complainant. Admittedly, the complainant received Rs.1,72,700/- through cheque dated: 28.02.2005. Therefore, if at all the complainant is entitled to anything more than what was refunded by the opposite party, the cause of action to file the complaint arose on 28.02.2005. The complaint was required to be filed within two years from 28.02.2005 namely on or before 28.02.2007. Therefore, the complaint is filed 21.02.2008 is bared by limitation. No application for condonation of delay is filed. When the complainant received refund of amount in excess of the amount paid by him it also supports the contention of the opposite party that the amount refunded to the complainant is in full and final settlement. That being so, the complainant is not entitled to claim anything more than what he has already received. Thus, we hold that the complainant in Case No.505/2008 is also not entitled to any relief as claimed. In the result, we pass the following :-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> <br /> 10. Both the complaints are dismissed. There is no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> 11. The Original of this Order shall be kept in Case No.503/2008 and a true copy of the Order shall be kept in Case No.505/2008.<br /> <br /> 12. Send a copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately.<br /> <br /> <br /> 13. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 30th DAY OF JUNE 2008.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />