COMPLAINT FILED ON:16.11.2010

DISPOSED ON: 21.06.2011

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

^21st DAY OF JUNE-2011

  PRESENT:-  SRI. B.S. REDDY                             PRESIDENT

                     SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA                MEMBER

                     SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA                         MEMBER          

COMPLAINT Nos.2589, 2590/2010

C O M M O N-O R D E R

SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT

These are the complaints filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, seeking direction against Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund the advance amount paid with interest at 18% p.a. and for compensation with costs of the proceedings on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 

As the OP in these complaints is common, the questions involved, relief claimed being the same, in order to avoid the repetition of facts and multiplicity of reasonings, these complaints stand disposed of by this common order.

The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of these complaints, are as under:

2.   The OP is a partnership firm carrying on business of property developing. In the year 2005 the OP offered various sites proposed to be formed at Abbanakuppe Village, Bidadi Hobli Ramanagara Taluk, Bangalore District. Both these complainants paid an advance of Rs.1,00,000/- each on 25.12.2005 through cheques to the OP for allotment of a site and OP issued receipts acknowledging the receipt of the amount. On 05.10.2007, the OP executed agreement deed agreeing to sell the sites in favosur of each of these complainants measuring 1,500 square feet proposed to be formed at ‘Amulya Arizona’ 5^th Phase and total consideration of each site Rs.4,50,000/-. Even after completion of almost 5 years, the OP failed to allot the sites as agreed upon and executed the sale deed. The complainants are ready to make payment of the balance consideration, the OP is dodging the allotment under the one or the other pretext and OP also refused to refund the advance amount. The legal notice got issued by the complainants was returned with an endorsement “Not Claimed”. The complainants have to undergo mental torture and financial loss due to the inconvenience caused. Hence the complaints seeking necessary relief’s as stated above.

3.   On appearance, OP filed the version by taking identical contention in both the complaints. OP admits that the complainants paid Rs.1,00,000/- each towards purchase of the sites and OP has executed the agreement deeds. It is stated that the remaining consideration was agreed to be paid within 30 days from BMRDA approval of the layout and Clause-3 of the agreement provides that the balance amount of Rs.3,50,000/- to be paid on or before the date of registration and the registration shall be done within 30 days from the date of BMRDA approval. Therefore, the complainants are entitled for registration of the sale deed only BMRDA approves the layout plan. OP has purchased the agricultural lands from various land owners, because of BMRDA has published Notification dt.19.07.2006 and 20.03.2007 stating that it is going to prepare master plan for Ramanagar District, until finalizing of the master plan, the concerned authority are restricted to give any conversion order, formation of layout. The conversion application filed by the vendors of the lands has been rejected by the Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagar District as per the endorsements dt.30.04.2009 OP has not deliberately postponed the registration of the sites. There is no deficiency of service, OP is ready to execute the sale deeds after obtaining the conversion order from the Deputy Commissioner and layout plan approved from the BMRDA. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaints with exemplary costs.              

4.   The complainants in order to substantiate the complaint averments, the G.P.A Holder of the complainants filed affidavit evidence. The Joint Managing Partner of OP filed affidavit evidence in support of defence version.

5.   The complainants filed written arguments.

6.  Arguments on complainant’s side heard. OP side taken as heard. 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?

7.  We record out findings on the above points:

Point No.1:- In Affirmative.

Point No.2:- Affirmative in part.

Point No.3:- As per final Order.

                                R E A S O N S

8.   At the outset, it is not in dispute that OP a partnership firm carrying on business of property developing offered various sites proposed to be formed at Abbanakuppe Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk, in the year 2005. On 25.12.2005 both these complainants paid advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each for allotment of site measuring 1,500 square feet. OP issued the receipt, acknowledging the receipt of the amount. On 05.10.2007 OP executed an agreement deeds agreeing to sell the sites formatted at ‘Amulya Arizona’ 5^th Phase at Abbanakuppe Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk  each measuring 1,500 square feet and the total cost of each site Rs.4,50,000/-. As per the terms of the agreement deed, the complainants were required to pay the balance consideration of Rs.3,50,000/- on or before the registration, the registration was to be done within 30 days from the date of BMRDA approval. The OP has not formed any layout and failed fulfill its obligation in allotting the sites and executing the sale deed. The defence of the OP that the conversion applications filed rejected by the Deputy Commissioner and BMRDA has not approved the layout as such it is unable to execute the sale deed cannot be accepted as a valid defence. Without there being any land acquired or purchased for the proposed layout, OP has made each of these complainants to part with initial amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The complainants are ready to pay the balance consideration and obtain sale deeds. The complainants cannot be made to wait indefinitely till OP purchase the lands and obtain approval for the layout from BMRDA. Further defence of the OP that till BMRDA approves the layout, the complainants cannot seek any relief is untenable. When OP was not able to get the conversion order and approval of the layout it would have been fair enough on its part in refunding the initial advance received from these complainants. The act of OP in not refunding the advance amount, amounts to deficiency in service. The complainants are entitled for refund of the advance amount with interest at 18% p.a. as they have suffered mental agony and loss of returns from the amount paid as advance. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:     

O R D E R