Date of Filing:13.07.2009<br /> Date of Order:16.11.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1641 OF 2009<br /> <br /> P.S. Vishwanath,<br /> S/o Late Shankarnarayana,<br /> C/o Pathi Bhaskariah & Bro.,<br /> No.149, Nagarthpet,<br /> Bangalore-560 002. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> P. Srinivasa Reddy,<br /> Managing Director,<br /> C.S. Holding Pvt. Ltd.,<br /> (Earlier Citi Sites Pvt. Ltd.,)<br /> No. 26, American Colonies,<br /> North Park Road,<br /> Kumara Park East,<br /> Bangalore-560001. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1642 OF 2009<br /> <br /> P.S. Vasanthkumar,<br /> S/o Late Shankarnarayana,<br /> C/o Pathi Bhaskariah & Bro.,<br /> No.149, Nagarthpet,<br /> Bangalore-560 002. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> P. Srinivasa Reddy,<br /> Managing Director,<br /> C.S. Holding Pvt. Ltd.,<br /> (Earlier Citi Sites Pvt. Ltd.,)<br /> No. 26, American Colonies,<br /> North Park Road,<br /> Kumara Park East,<br /> Bangalore-560001. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> These two complaints are clubbed together for passing common order since the opposite party in both the cases is one and the same and the question of law and facts involved in these two complaints are one and the same. Therefore, these complaints can be conveniently disposed off by passing common order. <br /> The respective complainants have filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 stating that, the opposite party is a builder and promoter. The complainants have become member of the opposite party company and the opposite party had given pass book to the complainants. The complainants have paid amount for the sites to the opposite party right from 1994 till 1999 on different dates. The complainants have approached the opposite party several times for allotment of sites. Finally the complainants had issued legal notice demanding the opposite party to allot the sites or return the money deposited by them. But there were no desired results from the opposite party. The opposite party has not fulfilled the obligation in allotment of sites to the complainants. The opposite party is guilty of not fulfilling its obligation and therefore liable under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Complainants are consumers within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act. There is a clear case of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The complainants have pleaded that they have invested hard earned money and therefore suffered mental agony due to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Therefore, the complainants have prayed to direct the opposite party to refund the amount paid by them with interest and compensation.<br /> 2. After admitting the complaint notices were issued to the opposite party by registered post. Notices were served on the opposite party. On behalf of opposite party, Sri. KLS Advocate appeared on 26/08/2009 and took time to file defence version. Time was granted to the opposite party and even it was ordered to pay cost of Rs.300/- to the complainants, the opposite party has not paid the cost and defence version also not filed even though five adjournments were granted to the opposite party. The opposite party has not availed the opportunity given to him and therefore, it was ultimately taken that defence version not filed. The complainants have filed their affidavit evidence.<br /> 3. Arguments of Advocate for the complainant heard. <br /> 4. In the light of the arguments advanced before us following points arise for consideration:<br /> 1. Whether the opposite party can be directed to refund the amount received from the respective complainants?<br /> <br /> 2. Whether the complainant has committed <br /> deficiency in service? <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 5. I have perused the complaint, affidavit and documents. The complainants have produced membership pass book given to them by the opposite party. The payments made by the complainants have found entries in the pass book right from 1994 till 1999. The total amount paid by the complainant in Complaint No.1641/2009 is Rs. 2,28,400/- as per the pass book entry and the total amount paid by the complainant in Complaint No. 1642/2009 right from 1994 till 1999 is Rs. 2,43,000/-. The cases put up by the complainants have gone unchallenged. The opposite party has not filed defence version. The opposite party has not contested the case and failed to participate in the proceeding. It appears that opposite party has no defence to make that’s why it has failed to participate in the proceeding. Therefore, the case of the complainants shall have to be accepted as true and correct. It is unfortunate that opposite party even after receiving lot of money from the complainants failed to allot the sites as per the commitment and obligation. Therefore, it is a clear case of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The prayer of the complainants for refund the amount with interest is quite fair, just and justified. The complainants have prayed for grant of compensation but on facts of the case, it is not a case to grant compensation. The ends of justice will be met in awarding interest on the amount paid by the complainants. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- <br /> ORDER<br /> 6. Both the complaints are allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,28,400/- in complaint No.1641/2009 to the complainant and the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,43,000/- in complaint No.1642/2009 to the complainant. Both the complainants are entitled to interest at 10% p.a on the above amount from the year 1999 till payment/realisation. <br /> <br /> 7. Both the complainants are also entitled Rs.1,000/- as cost of the present proceedings from the opposite party. <br /> <br /> 8. Keep the copy of the order in connected case. <br /> <br /> 9. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately as a statutory requirement. <br /> <br /> 10. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br /> <br />