COMPLAINTS FILED ON:23.08.2011

DISPOSED ON:30.04.2012

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

30^th DAY OF APRIL 2012

  PRESENT:-  SRI. B.S. REDDY                    PRESIDENT

                      SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA                     MEMBER     

COMPLAINT Nos. 2345/2011 & 2346/2011

COMMON ORDER

SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT

Both these complaints are filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, by the respective complainants seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund the advance amount paid towards allotment of site along with compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and litigation costs.

Since Op is common in both these complaints, the questions involved and the relief’s claimed being similar, in order to avoid the repetition of facts and multiplicity of reasoning’s both these complaints are stand disposed of by this common order.

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

In the year 2006 OP offered various sites which were supposed to be formed at Ittamadu Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk, Bangalore District (now in Ramanagara District).   The complainants approached OP for allotment of sites measuring 1500 sq.ft each and made an advance amount of Rs.1,70,000/- through cheques dt.26.09.2006 and 15.11.2006. OP has issued the receipts acknowledging the receipt of the cheques. On 23.01.2007, OP executed the agreement deeds in favour of these complainants in respect of the sites situated at ‘Amulya Arizona’, 6^th Phase, at the rate of 450 per sq.ft and in the agreement also OP has acknowledged the receipt of advance payment of Rs.1,70,000/-. OP shifted his office to some other premises and intimated the same to the complainants through letter dt.01.02.2008. Even after completion of almost 5 years, OP failed to allot the sites. The complainants are ready to pay the balance consideration and to obtain the sale deeds. OP neither allotted the sites and executed the registered sale deeds nor refunded the amount received. The complaints got issued legal notice dt.21.11.2011 and the same was duly served on the OP. OP has not complied the demand. Hence, the complainants felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP and filed these complaints.

3.   On appearance, OP filed version taking similar defence in both complaints. It is admitted that OP has executed the agreement deeds in favour of these complainants and for having received the initial sale consideration of Rs.1,70,000/- from each of these complainants and having issued the receipts. It is stated that the remaining amount of total sale consideration is agreed to be paid within 30 days from the BMRDA approval layout, the complainants are entitled to ask for registration of sale deeds only when BMRDA approves the formed layout.   OP has purchased the agricultural lands from various land owners for formation of ‘Amulya Arizona’ layout. OP is neither negligent nor delayed the formation of layout. BMRDA has published the Notification on 19.07.2006 and 20.03.2007 stating that it’s going to prepare master plan for Ramanagara District until finalizing of the master plan the concern authority is restricted to give any conversion order, formation of layout. On the applications filed for conversion the Deputy Commissioner asked the opinion of the BMRDA. The concerned authority has replied through its letter dt.02.04.2009 that since the master plan is not yet completed, on that basis the Deputy Commissioner has rejected the applications on 30.04.2009. OP is ready to execute the sale deed after obtaining the conversion order from the Deputy Commissioner and layout approval from the BMRDA. OP shall arrange alternative site in his another layout formed near Harohalli Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Op. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaints.

4.   The complainants in order to substantiate complaint averments each of the complainants filed affidavit evidence. The Joint Managing Partner of OP filed affidavit evidence in support of the defence version.

5.   The complainants Filed Written Arguments.

6.    Arguments on both sides heard.

7.   Points for consideration are:

      Point No.1:-  Whether the complainants proved the          

                          deficiency in service on the part of

                            the OP?

Point No.2:- Whether the complainants are entitled

                   for the reliefs now claimed?

      Point No.3:- To what Order?

8.   We record out 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 in the year 2006 OP offered various sites supposed to be formed at Ittamadu Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk, Bangalore District (now in Ramanagara District). The complainants approached OP seeking allotment of site measuring 1500 sq.ft each and made advance payment of Rs.1,70,000/- through cheques dt.15.11.2006 and 26.09.2006 respectively. OP has issued the receipts. On 23.01.2007 OP executed agreement deeds in respect of the sites proposed to be formed at ‘Amulya Arizona’ 6^th Phase, at Ittamadu Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk, Bangalore District measuring 1500 sq.ft each at the rate of Rs.450/- per sq.ft. OP failed to fulfill its obligation of allotting the sites and executing the sale deeds as assured, though the complaints were ready to pay the balance consideration and obtain the sale deeds. Even Op has refused to refund the advance sale consideration received.

The main defence of the OP is there is no deficiency in service on its part as it has purchased the lands from the farmers to form the layout but the BMRDA through Official Gazette dt.19.07.2006 and 20.03.2007 prohibited the concerned authorities from passing any conversion order till the formation of master plan for Ramanagara District.   Because of that the Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagar District has rejected the application filed for conversion on 30.04.2009.   Further the defence of the OP is it is always ready to execute the sale deed after obtaining the conversion Order from the Deputy Commissioner and layout plan approved from the BMRDA. It may be noted that OP has not produced any material to show that it has purchased any lands under the registered sale deeds for the purpose of forming the layout and any copy of the Order rejecting the application for conversion. The complainants cannot be made to wait indefinitely till OP gets order for conversion and approval of layout from BMRDA. We are unable to accept the defence that till the approval of BMRDA regarding the layout the complainants cannot seek for registration of the sale deeds. The act of Op neither forming the any layout and allotting the sites nor refunding the amount received towards initial sale consideration amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that each of these complainants are entitled for refund of the amount of Rs.1,70,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. by way of compensation along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-.    Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

O R D E R

The complaints filed by the complainants are allowed in part.

OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 23.01.2007, till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to each of these complainants.

OP to comply the order within four weeks from the date of this order.

Keep the original order in complaint No.2345/2011 and copy there of in complaint No.2346/2011.

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

(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  30^th day of APRIL– 2011.)

MEMBER                                                         PRESIDENT

CS.,