COMPLAINTS FILED ON:27.01.2012
DISPOSED ON:21.03.2012.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
21st DAY OF MARCH-2012
PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT Nos.184 & 232/2012
Complaintno.184/2012 Complainant | P.B.Havannavar S/o Bhimappa Havannavar, Aged about 54 years, Residing at No.LIG-106, Jalnagar, Bijapur, Bangalore-586 102. |
Complaintno.232/2012 Complainant | C.J.Srinivas Rao S/o C.N.Jayarama Rao, Aged about 38 years, Residing at C/o Ebenzer, Poultry Farm Compound, 1st Cross, 3rd, “C” Main, Devasandra, K.R.Puram, Bangalore-560 036. Adv:Sri.A.Jayaprakash V/s |
OPPOSITE PARTY/S | M/S EX-SERVICEMAN WELFARE ORGANIZATION, At 2nd Floor, A & B Block, Ammiamma Complex, Linden Street, Austin town, Bangalore-560 047. Represented by its General Secretary Mr.Gurugovinda and its President Mr.M.Ningappa. Ex-parte. |
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 against the same OP (herein after called as O.P) to refund the amount paid towards the deposits made for allotment of site with interest and compensation on the allegations of deficiency in service.
2. Since Op is common in both these complaints, the questions involved relief claimed are similar in nature, in order to avoid the repetition of facts and multiplicity of reasoning’s, both these complaints are stand disposed off by this common order.
3. In spite of service of notice by intimation delivered, OP failed to appear without any justifiable cause, hence placed ex-parte.
4.In order to substantiate complaint averments, each of the complainants filed affidavit evidence and produced documents.
5. Arguments from complainant’s side heard.
6.We have gone through the complaint averments, the documents produced and affidavit evidence of the complainants. On the basis of these materials, it becomes clear that OP is a registered organization established to form a residential layout and to allot the sites formed in the layout to its members. Both these complainants became members of the OP with an intention to own a residential site. OP formed a residential layout in the name of Indraprashta Defense Colony, Bangalore South and allotted a site measuring 50 X 80 feet in favour of complainant in complaint No.184/2012 and received initial deposit of Rs.72,000/- on 12.04.2006 and issued the receipt. OP formed a residential layout at Dandupalya and Kolathur Village, Hoskote Taluk and allotted a site bearing No.217 in favour of the complainant in complaint No.232/2012 and received initial deposit of Rs.2,85,120/- (Rs.43,200/- on 15.03.2006 and Rs.2,41,920/- on 12.08.2008), issued the receipts and executed agreement of sale dt.10.06.2009. OP failed to fulfill its obligation of forming a layout and allotting a site in favour of the complainants. In Complaint No.184/2012 for the e-mail letter dt.09.02.2009 of the complainant demanding to refund the amount, Op has replied on 16.02.2009 through e-mail undertaking to refund the amount at the earliest as they have received the post dated cheque from the developer, requested ten days time to refund the amount but till date no amount has been refunded. Similarly in complaint No.232/2012 OP has issued undertaking letter dt.25.05.2011 to refund the amount within a month i.e.,25.06.2011 but till date Op has not refunded the said amount. The act of OP neither forming any layout and allotting the sites as assured nor refunding the amount received towards initial sale consideration for allotment of sites to the complainants, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. When OP was not able to form any layout and allot the sites in favour of the complainants, it would have been fair enough on its part to refund the amount received as initial sale consideration from these complainants.
7.There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged affidavit evidence of the complainants, the documents produced. The very fact of Op remaining ex-parte leads to draw an inference that Op is admitting the claim of these complainants. The complainants have claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- respectively and interest at 21% p.a. on the amount claimed towards refund. Taking into consideration of the amount being held up with OP and the prevailing costs of the sites in the open market, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met by awarding interest at 18% p.a. as compensation on the amounts paid along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-each of these complainants. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
Both these complaints are allowed.
In complaint No.184/2012 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.72,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 12.04.2006, till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.
In complaint No.232/2012 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.2,84,120/- with interest at 18% p.a., from the respective date of payments, till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.
This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.
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 21st day of March-2012.)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Cs.
