O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:<br /> <br /> The brief facts of the complaint filed by the complainant against the Op is, that he was persuaded by the Op to purchase a plot bearing No.679 in the residential layout at Kodigehalli, Mandur Village, Bidrahalli Hobli, K.R.Puram, Bangalore measuring 30’ X 40’ at Rs.750/- per sq. ft. That an agreement was entered into on 28/06/2007 and he paid an advance amount of Rs.3.00 lakhs on 15/05/2007. Thereafter, despite several approaches and requests the Op did not respond, in showing the progress in formation of layout but told that the BMRDA has not yet approved the layout as such he finding delay, requested the Op to repay his money by even issuing legal notice but the Op has failed to repay his money and has therefore prayed for a direction to the Op to pay him Rs.6.00 lakhs as damages with interest and to award cost.<br /> <br /> 2. Op has entered appearance through his advocate and filed version admitting to had entered into an agreement of sale to sell site number 679 in Global City layout and receipt of Rs.3.00 lakhs from the complainant. It is further alleged that the Government of Karnataka had locked conversion of land from July 2006 the approval of master plan for a period of one year later on extended, and therefore, they could not pursue the project. It is further stated that they have formed a layout called M/s Royal Orchid at Dhanagahalli Village, Mysore Taluk and layout plan is also sanctioned and they are prepared to provide an alternative site or in the alternative, they are also ready to repay the complainant’s money and thus has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, complainant and the Op have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. Complainant along with complaint has produced a copy of the agreement, copy of the bank statement and a copy of the letter he had issued legal notice to Op for refund of his money. Op has not produced any documents. We have heard the counsel for both parties and perused the records. <br /> <br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the Op has caused deficiency in his service in not refunding his money?<br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No.1 : In the affirmative<br /> Point No.2 : See the final order<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 6. Answer on point No.1: As there is not much dispute between the parties, the matter do not detain as long for reaching the conclusion and for its disposal. As narrated above in brief, the Op has admitted the agreement of sale entered into between them and complainant and receipt of Rs.3,40,000/-. The agreement was entered into on 05/04/2007. Op has also admitted that because of the alleged land lock imposed by Government of Karnataka, they could not get the approval of BMRDA and therefore, they could not develop the layout and stated that land lock is now unlocked. But Op is not in a position to make a statement before this forum as to when they would be able to provide a site to the complainant as agreed. Op has offered to provide an alternative site at Mysore Taluk. Op had agreed to provide a site in Ramanagaram Taluk is now offering to provide an alternative site at Mysore Taluk. The proposed layouts can not be compared to each other in any respect and particularly regarding the cost of the site. But the problem is when the complainant is not agreeable for such an alternative site found to have addressed a letter to the Op on 08/08/2009 requesting for refund of his money, but OP did not send any reply to that letter. Even now the complainant say that he do not want the site and intend to take back his money in such a case we do not find any justification to refuse his request.<br /> <br /> 7. As could be seen from the contention of the parties we find no latches on the part of the complainant. The Op without anticipating the hurdles that may come in the way has received the advance money and shown no progress for more than two years. Therefore, complainant when is not willing to take an alternative site, we do not find any reasons for Op to refuse to return the complainant money. Hence, we find that inordinate delay in the progress of layout has resulted in deficiency in the service of Op. Therefore, we answer point No.1 in the affirmative and hold that complaint needs to be allowed and pass the following order.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is allowed. Op is directed to refund Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 18% p.a from the date of payment till that amount is repaid. Op is directed to refund that amount with interest within 45 days from today.<br /> <br /> Op shall pay cost of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the Open forum on this the 16th August 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br />