<br /> <br /> <br /> Date of Filing:24.03.2008<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: 508 OF 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> Smt. K.B. Sumithra,<br /> W/o. Revanna Siddappa,<br /> No.17/1, 4th Main, 5th Cross,<br /> Agrahara Dasarahalli,<br /> BANGALORE – 560 079. …COMPLAINANT<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 513 OF 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> Smt. S. Shylaja,<br /> W/o. Y.D. Narayan,<br /> Agricultural College, Kirshi Nagar,<br /> DHARWAD – 580 005. …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 /> <br /> COMMON ORDER<br /> Since both these complaints involving common questions and for similar reliefs are directed against the same opposite party, they are disposed off by this common order. The case of the complainants is as sunder:-<br /> <br /> 2. With intention to purchase a house site in VAJRAGIRI TOWNSHIP on Mysore Road, Bangalore proposed to be formed by opposite party, both the complainants became the members of the scheme. The complainant in Case No.508/2008 applied for a site measuring 30’ x 40’ and paid Rs.48,000/- towards the site cost, she was allotted Site No.142 in ‘D’ Block of the layout. The complainant in Case No.513/2008 applied for a site measuring 40’ x 60’ and paid Rs.96,000/- towards the site cost. The opposite party allotted Site No.33 in ‘D’ Block in her favour. Thereafter, inspite of repeated requests and reminders the opposite party failed to execute sale deed in-favour of the complainants in respect of the site allotted. No response was given to the legal Notice issued by them. Hence, these complaints for a direction to the opposite party to execute registered sale deed in respect of the sites allotted and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. <br /> <br /> 3. In the version the contention of the opposite party is that, site No.142 in ‘D’ Block allotted to the complainant in Case No.508/2008 had been formed out of Survey No.77/8 of Sheshagirihalli Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagaram Taluk and the opposite party made all the efforts to secure Katha from the Village Panchayat, but the Panchayat did not issue the valid Katha and therefore it is not in a position to execute sale deed in-favour of the complainant. They have further stated that soon after Village Panchayat issues Katha opposite party will execute sale deed as prayed for. It is further contended that Site No.33 allotted in-favour of the complainant in Case No.513/2008 is formed out of Survey No.77/11+14 of Sheshagirihalli Village. The land owner Alamelamma and her sons executed the agreement in-favour of the opposite party, but subsequently they have sold the same land to one Mr. Thimmegowda and therefore the Company could not execute sale deed in-favour of the complainant. It is further stated that if the complainant is ready to wait till the disposal of the suit, the Company is ready to execute sale deed as prayed for. <br /> <br /> 4. In support of the respective contentions both the parties have filed affidavits. We have heard the arguments on both sides.<br /> <br /> 5. The points for consideration are:-<br /> <br /> (a) Whether the complainants have proved deficiency<br /> in service on the part of the opposite party ?<br /> <br /> (b) Whether the complainants entitled to the relief prayed <br /> for in the respective complaints ?<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. Our findings are :-<br /> Point No.1:- In the affirmative,<br /> Point No.2:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. There is no denial of the fact that each complainant proposed to purchase a site of particular dimension and made payment towards sital value and the opposite had allotted a particular site in-favour of each complainant. It is also not denied that so far the opposite party has not executed sale deed in respect of the site allotted in-favour of each complainant. Therefore, this act of the opposite party in not executing sale deed in respect of the allotted site, inspite of receiving the sital value clearly amounts to deficiency in service. Though, it is contended by the opposite party that the Village Panchayat failed to issue Katha in its favour in respect of Survey No.77/8 & the owners of Survey No.77/11+14 have sold the same to land to a third party, no material to support that contention is produced. In Case No.513/2008 the complainant has produced the copy of the letter dated: 01.08.2002 addressed by the opposite party. In this letter the opposite party has not disclosed that the land in which Site No.33 in “D” Block is formed has been sold to the third party. In this letter it is stated that as on the date of the letter the Company had registered number of sites in ‘D’ Block in-favour of the other members, but there was delay so far as the complainant is concerned. The opposite party has further stated that the delay is caused as the concerned Authorities have called for further clarifications such as revising the layout plan, leaving more space for civic amenities and other related documents and assured that the approval is expected shortly and the Company is planning to register the site in-favour of the complainant by the middle of November-2002. In view of what is stated in this letter and in the absence of material it becomes difficult to believe that third party interest is created in respect of Survey No.77/11+14 and therefore the Company is not in position to execute sale deed in-favour of the complainant in Case No.513/2008. Though the opposite party has also undertaken to execute sale deed in-favour of the complainant if he is prepared to wait till the litigation in-respect of the said land is over, the particulars of the litigation are also not furnished. In Case No.508/2008 the opposite party has also undertaken to execute sale deed soon after the Village Panchayat transfers the Katha in respect of Survey No.77/8 in its favour. Therefore the opposite party is not in a position to execute sale deed in-favour of both complainants, if they are prepared to wait for some time and as such it is just and proper to direct the opposite party to execute sale deed in-favour of each complainant.<br /> <br /> 8. However, from the documents produced by the complainant in Case No.508/2008 it appears to us that except the cost of the site the complainants has not paid any amount towards development charges and other expenses. As per the Agreement to Sell dated: 01.04.1997 the opposite party agreed to sell a site measuring 30’ x 40’ for a consideration of Rs.48,000/- excluding the development & registration charges. In Clause-6 of the agreement to sell it is specially provided that the cost of development and registration charges shall be borne by the purchaser. As per the letter dated: 02.07.1998 the complainant was still due Rs.13,160/- towards cost of the site. On receipt of the said letter the complainant requested to transfer Rs.15,000/- from Membership No.9614 to Membership No.2498. Accordingly the Company transferred Rs.15,000/- from Membership No.9614 to Membership No.2498 under which Site No.142 in “D” Block is allotted to the complainant. Including that amount, the complainant has paid only the cost of the site and has not paid any amount towards development charges to claim registration of the site. The complainant in Case No.508/2008 has to pay the balance amount payable to the opposite party towards development and other charges as fixed by the Company. So far Case No.513/2008 is concerned as mentioned in the Statement of Account dated: 27.03.2002 the complainant appears have paid all the amount including registration and miscellaneous expenses and nothing is due from him to the Company. In the result, we pass the following :-<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 8. Both the complaints are allowed. The opposite party is directed to execute registered sale deed in respect of the site allotted to each complainant, subject to the complainant in Case No.508/2008 making payment of the balance amount if any to the opposite party. The opposite party shall also pay costs of Rs.1,000/- to each complainant in both the cases. Compliance of this order shall be made within eight weeks from the date of communication.<br /> <br /> 9. The Original of this Order shall be kept in Case No.508/2008 and a true copy of the Order shall be kept in Case No.513/2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> 10. Send a copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately.<br /> <br /> <br /> 11. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 30th DAY OF JUNE-2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />