<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 26.12.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 28th FEBRUARY 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2818/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.K.A.Prakash,S/o K.B.Arunachalam,Aged about 38 years,Occ: Advocate,R/at No.583, 15th Main,Behind Manjunatha Temple,3rd Stage, Manjunathanagar,West of Chord Road,Bangalore – 560 010.V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY M/s.E.K Land Developers,(Formerly classic Land Developers)Adakimaranahalli, 21st K.M.,Tumkur Road,Bangalore – 560 123.Represented by itsProprietor Mr.E.Krishnappa.Advocate – Sri.M.R.Ravindra.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund Rs.1,39,434/- with interest and pay a compensation on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant being lured away with the advertisement and propaganda issued by the OP who claims to be the developers and promoters of layouts consisting of residential sites of various dimensions in and around Bangalore thought of purchasing a site of his choice in the project floated by the OP in the name and style “SRI BALAJI NAGAR”. OP accepted the membership of the complainant. Complainant paid Rs.35,000/- towards the cost of the said site. But thereafter there were no developmental activities at all. When complainant insisted the OP to allot him a site and register it, OP come up with a lame excuse that due to some legal hurdles they could not complete “SRI BALAJI NAGAR” project but they will allot him a site measuring 30’ x 40’ in “Sri Balaji Township” for a cost of Rs.65,000/-. Complainant felt foul play that is why he sought for the refund of what ever the amount that he has paid, but all his efforts went in vain. Though complainant invested his hard earned money he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of the hostile attitude of the OP. Under such circumstances he felt unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP the complaint is barred by time, due to some legal hurdles they are unable to complete the said project. They have floated the said project with a bonafide intention to allot sites to its members under the welfare scheme. Hence complainant is not entitled for the interest or compensation as prayed. Through negotiation the matter was amicably settled but still complainant has come up with the false and frivolous complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant become the member of the project floated by the OP in the name and style “SRI BALAJI NAGAR” and opted to purchase a site measuring 30’ x 40’ for a total cost of Rs.60,000/-. It is also not at dispute that OP enrolled the complainant as a member of the said project and received Rs.35,000/- in the month of July 1996. Now the grievance of the complainant is that even after lapse of 10 years or so OP failed to complete the said project and register the site in his favour. He felt that he is cheated and a fraud is committed. Hence sought for refund of the sital value after cancellation of his membership. The correspondence made in that regard is produced.<br /> <br /> 7. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake just to save their skin out of sin. Though complainant paid the said huge amount of Rs.35,000/- in July 1996, so for so good OP neither completed the said project nor registered the site in favour of the complainant. For having retained the said huge amount for all these years OP accrued the wrongful gain to self thereby caused wrongful loss to the complainant that too for no fault of his.<br /> <br /> 8. Of course OP has come up with the defence that the project could not be completed because of certain legal hurdles. No such documents are produced to substantiate the said defence. Further OP says that there was an amicable settlement between complainant and themselves and that they paid the money. For this defence also basically there is no proof. When the matter is settled, what is the amount that is paid, on which date is not known. No document is produced. Under such circumstances the defence set out by the OP appears to be an eye wash.<br /> <br /> 9. Of course OP has raised the objections contending that the complaint is barred by time. We don’t find force in the said defence also because when once OP accepted the membership of the complainant and collected the sital value till it allots site and register the site in favour of its member like complainant, complainant will get a recurring cause of action. The hostile attitude of the OP must have naturally caused both mental agony and financial loss to the complainant.<br /> <br /> 10. Though complainant invested his hard earned money about 10 years back he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment. Under such circumstances naturally he must have suffered both monetary loss as well as mental agony. In our considered view justice will be met by directing the OP to refund the said amount. Complainant has already made a claim in the year 1998. Even after lapse of 10 years it was not considered. For these reasons it is a fit case wherein we can direct the OP to refund said amount with interest and also pay compensation bearing in mind the guidance value of the site as on today. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.35,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from August 1996 till realization and pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and a litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 28th day of February 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />