COMPLAINT FILED ON:09.05.2012

DISPOSED ON:31.08.2012

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

31^st DAY OF AUGUST 2012

       PRESENT:- SRI. B.S.REDDY                PRESIDENT                        

                          SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA                  MEMBER

O R D E R

SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT

The complainant filed this complaint U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act of 1986 seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as OP) to pay sum of Rs.85,209/- with interest at 18% p.a. along with compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on the allegation of deficiency in service.

2. The case of the complainant to be stated in brief is that:-

The complainant was member of M/s Grihalakshmi, having its office at No.20/1, 21^st first Floor, East Circle Road, V.V.Puram, Bangalore and it was represented to him that it is carrying its activities with regard to acquisition of land, formation of residential layouts and allot the sites to its members.   The complainant paid total amount of Rs.16,200/- towards allotment of site on various dates from 20.08.1985 to 01.09.1988 to M/s Grihalakshmi.   In spite of lapse of couple of years neither any site was allotted to him nor was aforesaid amounts refunded.   OP has taken over the entire affairs of M/s Grihalakshmi.   As such he has approached the OP and requested for allotment of site or to refund the amount with interest.   The complainant had written a letter dt.31.12.2011, to OP calling upon it either to allot a site or to refund the aforesaid amounts with interest.  OP has not allotted the site nor refunded the amounts.    OP has to refund the amount of Rs.16,200/- deposited and the interest at 18% from 01.09.1988 to 30.04.2012 amounting to Rs.69,209/- total Rs.85,209/-.    The cause of action arose on the date of aforesaid payments were made and the complaint made in the first week of November-2011 when he has furnished the copies of the aforesaid receipts, on the date of issuance of the letter dt.31.12.2011 on the date of receipt of the letter.  Hence, the complaint.

3. On appearance OP filed version contending that OP is functioning under No Loss No Profit Basis in terms of the Principles laid down in the Co-operative movement and as such, the OP is not selling any house sites for consideration beyond the cost.   Earlier complainant’s mother was the member and subsequently by virtue of the transfer of the member of membership the complainant has become a member of the OP-Society.   The complaint is barred by Limitation.    The complainant has made last sital deposit of Rs.16,200/- on various dates.   The claim for refund after 24 years of the alleged deposit is not maintainable.   The Government of Karnataka has acquired certain lands for OP to form the layout but the land acquisition proceedings were challenged before the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.15625/1987.   Various other petitioners also challenged the acquisition proceedings.   The Hon’ble High Court allowed the Writ Petition on 18.06.1991 quashing the land acquisition proceedings.   The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions filed by the OP-Society on 21.02.1995 in Civil Leave Petition No.13339/1991 and directed the Government to return the lands to the land owners.   OP-Society has made hectic efforts to get back the money which was deposited with Special Land Acquisition Officer and OP filed Writ Petition to release the amount in W.P.No.26916/1997 c/w 32890/1997.   Pursuant to orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer released an amount of Rs.12,25,141/- against the deposit of Rs.3.00 Crores and odd.   An amount of Rs.33,80,000/- was shown towards expenditure due in the deposited amount while returning the amount, no interest is paid.  Some of the members have filed complaints before Consumer Redressal Forums, the Hon’ble Forums ordered for repayment.   OP has not kept money in its account not even a single day after received from the LAO, the refund of the deposited amount.   OP is not liable to pay interest as per Clause-8 of the Subsidiary Rules of allotment of sites.   As per the judgment in AIR-2010 SC 486, the Developmental Authorities like OP need not pay interest for the delay or failure of the projects.   The present case is similar to that of the case before the Supreme Court of India, hence OP is not liable to pay interest.   There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.   Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

4.   The complainant in order to substantiate complaint averments filed affidavit evidence and produced documents. The Secretary of OP filed affidavit evidence in support of defence version.

5.   During the pendency of this proceedings, OP has refunded an amount of Rs.16,200/- deposited by the complainant towards sital value.   The cheque was issued on 03.07.2012 the complainant has received the same on 13.08.2012.   In view of the same, the claim now to be decided is in respect of interest claimed and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.  Interest at 18% p.a. on the sital deposit amount from 01.09.1988 to 30.04.2012 claimed amounting to Rs.69,209/-.

6.   The complainant filed Written Arguments, Arguments on both sides heard.

7.   The points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:

Point No.1:-Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?

           Point No.2:-If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the relief’s now claimed?

           Point No.3:-To What order?

8.   We record our findings on the above points:

           Point No.1:-Affirmative

   Point No.2:-Affirmative in part

   Point No.3:-As per final order.

R E A S O N S

9. At the outset it is not at dispute that an amount of Rs.16,200/- was deposited towards the cost of the allotment of site with M/s Grihalakshmi and the complainant demanded for allotment of site or refund of the amount.   OP has taken over entire affairs of Grihalakshmi.   OP was unable to form any layout on account of the acquisition proceedings acquiring lands by the Government for OP-society of form the layout were quashed and the same was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Leave Petition No.13339/1991 on 21.02.1995.  When the acquisition proceedings were quashed in the year 1995 itself and OP was not in a position to form any layout it would have been fair enough on its part to refund the amount to the complainant.    After filing this complaint OP has refunded the sital value of Rs.16,200/- to the complainant.   Soon after the acquisition proceedings were quashed, OP has not taken any steps to refund the amount to the complainant.   The retention of the amount for more than 17 years after the acquisition proceedings was quashed,   OP has caused wrongful gain to itself and wrongful loss to the complainant.   The act of OP neither forming the layout and allotting the site nor refunding the amount with interest, amounts to deficiency in service on its part.

10.There is no merit in the contention that the complaint is barred by Limitation.    When once OP has accepted the sital value, till the site is allotted and the sale deed is executed, the cause of action to claim the relief continuous to accrue.  

11.The Principles laid down in AIR-2010 SC Page-486 cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case for the reason that Op is not a Developing Authority constituted under any statute.    The acquisition proceedings were quashed by the Hon’ble High Court and the same was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 21.02.1995.   Even thereafter, after lapse of more than 16 years of the Order of Supreme Court, Op has failed to refund the amount to the complainant.   OP refunded the amount only during the pendency of these proceedings.   The Hon’ble State Commission in Appeal No.2855/2009 against the same OP awarded interest at 18% p.a. in respect of similar matter.   In complaint Nos.1141/2011, 1142/2011 and 1143/2011 against the same OP interest has been awarded by this Forum at 18% p.a. on the sital deposit.   Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled for interest at 18% p.a. as claimed in the complaint by way of compensation.    In view of allowing the interest, compensation cannot be awarded.  Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:

O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant allowed in part.  

Op is directed to pay an amount of Rs.69,209/- towards interest on the sital deposit and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.

This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of this order.

        Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the  3^1st day of AUGUST-2012.)

MEMBER                                                         PRESIDENT

Cs.

  COMPLAINT FILED ON:09.05.2012

DISPOSED ON:31.08.2012

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

31^st DAY OF AUGUST 2012

       PRESENT:- SRI. B.S.REDDY                PRESIDENT                        

                          SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA                  MEMBER

O R D E R

SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT

The complainant filed this complaint U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act of 1986 seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as OP) to pay sum of Rs.85,209/- with interest at 18% p.a. along with compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on the allegation of deficiency in service.

2. The case of the complainant to be stated in brief is that:-

The complainant was member of M/s Grihalakshmi, having its office at No.20/1, 21^st first Floor, East Circle Road, V.V.Puram, Bangalore and it was represented to him that it is carrying its activities with regard to acquisition of land, formation of residential layouts and allot the sites to its members.   The complainant paid total amount of Rs.16,200/- towards allotment of site on various dates from 20.08.1985 to 01.09.1988 to M/s Grihalakshmi.   In spite of lapse of couple of years neither any site was allotted to him nor was aforesaid amounts refunded.   OP has taken over the entire affairs of M/s Grihalakshmi.   As such he has approached the OP and requested for allotment of site or to refund the amount with interest.   The complainant had written a letter dt.31.12.2011, to OP calling upon it either to allot a site or to refund the aforesaid amounts with interest.  OP has not allotted the site nor refunded the amounts.    OP has to refund the amount of Rs.16,200/- deposited and the interest at 18% from 01.09.1988 to 30.04.2012 amounting to Rs.69,209/- total Rs.85,209/-.    The cause of action arose on the date of aforesaid payments were made and the complaint made in the first week of November-2011 when he has furnished the copies of the aforesaid receipts, on the date of issuance of the letter dt.31.12.2011 on the date of receipt of the letter.  Hence, the complaint.

3. On appearance OP filed version contending that OP is functioning under No Loss No Profit Basis in terms of the Principles laid down in the Co-operative movement and as such, the OP is not selling any house sites for consideration beyond the cost.   Earlier complainant’s mother was the member and subsequently by virtue of the transfer of the member of membership the complainant has become a member of the OP-Society.   The complaint is barred by Limitation.    The complainant has made last sital deposit of Rs.16,200/- on various dates.   The claim for refund after 24 years of the alleged deposit is not maintainable.   The Government of Karnataka has acquired certain lands for OP to form the layout but the land acquisition proceedings were challenged before the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.15625/1987.   Various other petitioners also challenged the acquisition proceedings.   The Hon’ble High Court allowed the Writ Petition on 18.06.1991 quashing the land acquisition proceedings.   The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions filed by the OP-Society on 21.02.1995 in Civil Leave Petition No.13339/1991 and directed the Government to return the lands to the land owners.   OP-Society has made hectic efforts to get back the money which was deposited with Special Land Acquisition Officer and OP filed Writ Petition to release the amount in W.P.No.26916/1997 c/w 32890/1997.   Pursuant to orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer released an amount of Rs.12,25,141/- against the deposit of Rs.3.00 Crores and odd.   An amount of Rs.33,80,000/- was shown towards expenditure due in the deposited amount while returning the amount, no interest is paid.  Some of the members have filed complaints before Consumer Redressal Forums, the Hon’ble Forums ordered for repayment.   OP has not kept money in its account not even a single day after received from the LAO, the refund of the deposited amount.   OP is not liable to pay interest as per Clause-8 of the Subsidiary Rules of allotment of sites.   As per the judgment in AIR-2010 SC 486, the Developmental Authorities like OP need not pay interest for the delay or failure of the projects.   The present case is similar to that of the case before the Supreme Court of India, hence OP is not liable to pay interest.   There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.   Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

4.   The complainant in order to substantiate complaint averments filed affidavit evidence and produced documents. The Secretary of OP filed affidavit evidence in support of defence version.

5.   During the pendency of this proceedings, OP has refunded an amount of Rs.16,200/- deposited by the complainant towards sital value.   The cheque was issued on 03.07.2012 the complainant has received the same on 13.08.2012.   In view of the same, the claim now to be decided is in respect of interest claimed and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.  Interest at 18% p.a. on the sital deposit amount from 01.09.1988 to 30.04.2012 claimed amounting to Rs.69,209/-.

6.   The complainant filed Written Arguments, Arguments on both sides heard.

7.   The points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:

Point No.1:-Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?

           Point No.2:-If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the relief’s now claimed?

           Point No.3:-To What order?

8.   We record our findings on the above points:

           Point No.1:-Affirmative

   Point No.2:-Affirmative in part

   Point No.3:-As per final order.

R E A S O N S

9. At the outset it is not at dispute that an amount of Rs.16,200/- was deposited towards the cost of the allotment of site with M/s Grihalakshmi and the complainant demanded for allotment of site or refund of the amount.   OP has taken over entire affairs of Grihalakshmi.   OP was unable to form any layout on account of the acquisition proceedings acquiring lands by the Government for OP-society of form the layout were quashed and the same was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Leave Petition No.13339/1991 on 21.02.1995.  When the acquisition proceedings were quashed in the year 1995 itself and OP was not in a position to form any layout it would have been fair enough on its part to refund the amount to the complainant.    After filing this complaint OP has refunded the sital value of Rs.16,200/- to the complainant.   Soon after the acquisition proceedings were quashed, OP has not taken any steps to refund the amount to the complainant.   The retention of the amount for more than 17 years after the acquisition proceedings was quashed,   OP has caused wrongful gain to itself and wrongful loss to the complainant.   The act of OP neither forming the layout and allotting the site nor refunding the amount with interest, amounts to deficiency in service on its part.

10.There is no merit in the contention that the complaint is barred by Limitation.    When once OP has accepted the sital value, till the site is allotted and the sale deed is executed, the cause of action to claim the relief continuous to accrue.  

11.The Principles laid down in AIR-2010 SC Page-486 cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case for the reason that Op is not a Developing Authority constituted under any statute.    The acquisition proceedings were quashed by the Hon’ble High Court and the same was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 21.02.1995.   Even thereafter, after lapse of more than 16 years of the Order of Supreme Court, Op has failed to refund the amount to the complainant.   OP refunded the amount only during the pendency of these proceedings.   The Hon’ble State Commission in Appeal No.2855/2009 against the same OP awarded interest at 18% p.a. in respect of similar matter.   In complaint Nos.1141/2011, 1142/2011 and 1143/2011 against the same OP interest has been awarded by this Forum at 18% p.a. on the sital deposit.   Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled for interest at 18% p.a. as claimed in the complaint by way of compensation.    In view of allowing the interest, compensation cannot be awarded.  Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:

O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant allowed in part.  

Op is directed to pay an amount of Rs.69,209/- towards interest on the sital deposit and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.

This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of this order.

        Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the  3^1st day of AUGUST-2012.)

MEMBER                                                         PRESIDENT

Cs.