COMPLAINTS FILED ON:19.12.2011
DISPOSED ON:31.05.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
31st DAY OF MAY 2012
PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT Nos. 2304/2011, 2305/2011 & 2306/2011
Complaintno.2304/2011 Complainant | 1. Mr.Udayraj Gupta S/o B.N.Subbaraja Shetty, Major by age, R/o #126, Bhagawan, KSRTC Layout, Uttarahalli Main Road, Bangalore-60. 2. Mr.M.S.Venkatesh S/o M.Suryanarayana Setty, Major by age, R/o #195, 5th Main, 4th Cross, Nrupatunga Nagar, 7th Phase, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore-78. Adv:Sri.Siddanooru Vishwanatha. |
Complaintno.2305/2011 Complainant | B.S.Suma W/o Mr.M.S.Venkatesh, Major by age, R/o # 195, 5th Main, 4th Cross, Nrupatunga Nagar, 7th Phase, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore-78. Adv:Sri.Siddanooru Vishwanatha. |
Complaintno.2306/2011 Complainant | 1. Mr.Udayraj Gupta S/o B.N.Subbaraja Shetty, Major by age, R/o #126, Bhagawan, KSRTC Layout, Uttarahalli Main Road, Bangalore-60. 2. Mr.M.S.Venkatesh S/o M.Suryanarayana Setty, Major by age, 3. Mr.Chandrasekhar Gupta S/o M.Suryanarayana Setty, Major by age, The complainant No.2 & 3 are both R/o #195, 5th Main, 4th Cross, Nrupatunga Nagar, 7th Phase, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore-78. Adv:Sri.Siddanooru Vishwanatha. |
OPPOSITE PARTY/S | M/s Amulya Housing (Property Developers), Mathrushree Arcade, # 72/1-B, 2nd Floor, Near Ganesha Temple, Jaraganahalli, Kanakapura Main Road, Bangalore-560 078, Rep. by its Managing Partner Mr.V.Uma Maheshwar Reddy, Gandhi Law Chambers. |
| | |
| | | | |
COMMON ORDER
SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT
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 received towards allotment of sites with interest at 18% p.a. and to pay compensation on the allegation of deficiency in service.
Since Op is common in all 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 all 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 the OP had offered various sites which were supposed to be formed at Abbanakuppe Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk, Bangalore District (now in Ramanagara District). These complainants approached the OP for allotment of sites and made advance payment of Rs.1,00,000/- in complaint No.2304/2011, Rs.2,25,000/- in complaint No.2305/2011 and Rs.4,80,000/- in complaint No.2306/2011. OP has issued the receipts and executed the agreement deeds in favour of these complainants acknowledging the receipt of the amounts. OP failed to form the layout and allot the sites as assured. The complainants demanded for refund of the amount paid and got issued legal notice to the OP, OP neither complied the demand nor replied for the notice. Thus the complainants felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP and filed these complaints.
3. On appearance, Op filed version with similar contentions in all these complaints. It is contended that OP has executed the agreement deeds in favour of these complainants agreeing to sell the sites proposed to be formed in the layout at Abbanakuppe Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara District and OP has issued the receipts. The remaining sale consideration is agreed to be paid within 30 days from the BMRDA approval of the layout, as per clause-3 of the agreement deeds. The complainants are not entitled to ask for registration of sale deed as BMRDA has not given approval to the formed layout. OP purchased agricultural lands from various land owners for formation of the layout. BMRDA issued Notification dt.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 are restricted to give any conversion order, formation of layout. The master plan is not completed; therefore the conversion applications filed by the owners of the lands are rejected by the Deputy Commissioner as per the endorsement issued. OP has not deliberately postponing the registration of the sites. OP is ready to execute the sale deed after obtaining the conversion order from the Deputy Commissioner and the layout approval from the BMRDA. OP shall arrange 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 and produced documents. The Managing Partner of OP filed affidavit evidence in support of the defence version.
5. Arguments from complainant’s side heard, OP side taken as heard.
6. 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 relief’s now claimed?
Point No.3:- To what Order?
7. 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
At the outset it is not at dispute that these complainants approached OP for allotment of sites in the proposed layout to be formed at Abbanakuppe Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk. The complainant in complaint No.2304/2011 paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as advance sale consideration, complainant in complaint No.2305/2011 paid an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- and the complainant in complaint Nos.2306/2011 paid an amount of Rs.4,80,000/. OP has issued the receipts and executed the agreement deeds in favour of these complainants on 05.10.2007, 22.02.2007 and 23.02.2007. In spite of receipt of advance sale consideration, OP failed to form the layout and allot the sites as assured. The complainants demanded for refund of the amount, OP refused to pay the same. In spite of issue of legal notice OP neither complied the demand nor refunded the amount. As such the complainants felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP and approached this Forum.
The main defence of the OP is that as per Clause-3 of the Agreement Deeds, the complainants have to pay the balance amount on or before the date of registration. The registration shall be done within 30 days from the date of BMRDA approval. It is stated that BMRDA has not approved the layout, the land owners from whom OP purchased the lands applied for conversion but the Deputy Commissioner has not passed the conversion Order on account of BMRDA banned conversion of the lands till finalization of the Master Plan. The Master Plan is not at completed OP could not get the conversion Order and layout approval from the BMRDA. OP is ready to provide alternative sites to the complainants at Kanakapura Main Road near Harohalli Village. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. In our view when there was a ban for conversion of the lands and approval of the layout by BMRDA, OP ought not to have received the advance sale consideration from these complainants. The complainants are not prepared to accept the alternative sites proposed by OP. When OP was not in a position to form the layout and allot the sites as per the terms of the agreement deeds, it would have been fair enough on its part to refund the amount received as initial sale consideration from these complainants. The act of OP neither forming the layout and allotting the sites nor refunding the advance sale consideration received from these complainants amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the complainants are entitled for refund of the advance sale consideration with interest at 18% p.a. by way of compensation along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- in each case. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaints filed by the complainants are allowed in part.
In complaint No.2304/2011 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 01.01.2006 till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainants.
In complaint No.2305/2011 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of respective payments till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.
In complaint No.2306/2011 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.4,80,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of respective payments, till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainants.
OPs to comply the order within four weeks from the date of this order.
This original order shall be kept in the file of the complaint No.2304/2011 and a copy of it shall be placed in other respective files.
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 31st day of MAY– 2012.)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
CS.,
