COMPLAINTS FILED ON:24.11.2011
DISPOSED ON:10.07.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
10th DAY OF JULY-2012
PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SRI.A.MUNIYAPP.A MEMBER
COMPLAINT Nos. 2132/2011 2133/2011
& 2134/2011
Complaint no.2132/2011 Complainant | Suresh Bijoor S/o Narashima, Aged about 42 years, Res. At # 29, 10th Cross, Bendrenagar, B.S.K., 2nd Stage, Bangalore-560 070. Now residing at Villa No.89, Concorde Sylvan View, Near Gold Coin Club, Ramasagar Village, Electronic City, Bangalore-560 100. Adv:Sri.Lokesh Kumar K.S., |
OPPOSITE PARTY/S | V/s 1. Karnataka Legislative Council Secretariat Employees Welfare Forum (Reg), No.2, 2nd Floor, 4th Main Road, Neharu Nagar, Sheshadripuram Bangalore-20, Represented by its President K.Mahajan. 2. M/s Sree Venkateshwara Estates and Builders, Both are Office at #2, 2nd Floor, 4th Main Road, Nehru Nagar, Sheshadripuram, Bangalore-560 020. Represented by its Proprietor, K.V.Venkatesh S/o Late Venkataramaiah. Adv.Sri.Siddanooru Vishwanatha |
Complaint no.2133/2011 Complainant | Geetha Madeshwar W/o G.Madeshwar, Aged about 44 years, No.64, 13th Cross, West Park Road, Malleshwaram, Bangalore-3. Adv:Sri.Viswanath Sabarad., |
Complaint no.2134/2011 Complainant | Smt.Indu Kumar M.S., W/o Late Siddeshwar G, No.28,Girls School Street, Seshadripuram, Bangalore-20. Adv:Sri.Viswanath Sabarad., |
OPPOSITE PARTY/S | V/s 1. M/s Karnataka Legislative Council Secretariat Employees Welfare Forum Floor, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalfore-1, Represented by its President K.Mahajan. 2. M/s Venkateshwara Estates and Builders, No.28, 4th Main Road, Nehru Nagar, Bangalore-560 020. Represented by its Proprietor, K.V.Venkatesh S/o Late Venkataramaiah. Aged about 43 years. Adv.Sri.Siddanooru Vishwanatha |
| | |
| | | | |
COMMON ORDER
SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT
These are the complaints filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the respective complainants seeking direction against the Opposite Parties (herein after called as O.Ps) to allot and register the sites alternatively to refund the amount deposited towards allotment of sites with interest at 24% p.a. along with compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on the allegation of deficiency in service.
Since Ops are 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:
Ops represented the complainants that they are forming a residential layout at Hoovinayakanahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and assured that the formation of the layout would be completed before December-2009 and induced the complainants to become members of the OP1 by paying share amount. Accordingly these complainants with a fond hope of owning a site for constructing residential buildings became the members of Op and applied for the sites in the layout proposed to be formed at Vayuja Council Gardens Layout. The complainants deposited the amounts towards allotment of sites as shown in the chart below. OP1 is represented by its President and Op2 is the Developer of the proposed layout.
Sl. Nos. | Complaint Nos. | The amount deposited | The date of agreements |
1. | 2132/2011 | Rs.4,50,000/- | 10.09.2008 |
2. | 2133/2011 | Rs.1,35,000/- 25/12/2006 Rs.2,70,000/- 15/07/2007 Total Rs.4,05,000/- | 02/01/2007 |
3. | 2134/2011 | Rs.2,70,000/- 24/01/2007 Rs.1,35,000/- 10/07/2007 Total Rs.4,05,000/- | 25/01/2007 |
Ops neither allotted the sites nor refunded the amounts deposited towards allotment of the sites in spite of repeated demands and notices issued, the complainants felt deficiency in service and filed these complaints, seeking the relief’s stated above.
3. In the versions filed OP has taken similar contentions in all these cases, it is admitted that these complainants became members of OP-1 and deposited the amounts as stated in the complaints applied for the sites proposed to be formed in ‘Vayuja Council Gardens Layout which was supposed to be formed in Hoovinayakanahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Hennur Main Road, Bangalore, Rural District. Op1 had already entered into an agreement with OP2 and purchased various lands from various farmers and was waiting for the approval from the appropriate authority. But the said lands were acquired by the KIADB and based on the revenue records which were standing in the names farmers; the farmers collected the compensation amount. Thus the Op incurred huge loss. Ops not deliberately postponing the registration and there is no deficiency in service. The delay in allotting the sites is due to the act of State and beyond the control of these Ops. The transactions were subject to conversion of land and the approval from the appropriate authority. The complainants are not entitled to seek for the execution of sale deeds until the approval. The complaints are barred by time. The complainants are not ‘Consumers’ as defined under the Act. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaints with exemplary costs.
4. The complainants in order to substantiate complaint averments, each of these complainants have filed affidavit evidence. OP2 filed affidavit evidence in support of the defence version.
5. Arguments from complainant’s sides heard, Ops 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 OPs?
Point No.2:- Whether the complainants are entitled
for the reliefs now claimed?
Point No.3:- To what Order?
7. We record our 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
OP1 is the Employees Welfare Forum represented by its President and OP2 is the Developer. The complainants being lured away with the advertisements and the assurances given by these Ops that they are forming a residential layouts ‘Vayuja Council Gardens’ at Goovinayakanahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore Rural Taluk, with a fond hope of owing a site for constructing a residential building became members of Op-1 and applied for the sites in the said layout. The complainants have deposited the amounts towards allotment of sites as shown in the chart above. Ops are not disputing the fact of these complainants having deposited the amounts as shown in the above chart and also the sale agreements executed in corporating the terms and conditions for having issued the receipts acknowledging the receipt of the amounts. Ops failed to fulfill their obligation of forming the layouts and allotting the sites as assured. The only defence of the Ops is that OP1 entered into an agreement of sale for purchasing the lands from various farmers. But the said lands are being acquired by KAIDBA, the farmers who were the owners of the lands received the compensation, as a result, Ops could not form the layouts. In our opinion when Ops were not owning the lands for the purpose of formation of the layout, they could not have made these complainants to part with huge amount as initial deposit for allotment of sites. Merely because the lands proposed for the layout were acquired and compensation has been received by the land owners, these complainants cannot be deprived of their rights to get back the initial sale consideration with interest by way of compensation. When Ops were not in a position to form any layouts, it would have been fair enough on their part to refund the amounts to the complainants. The act of Ops neither forming the layout and allotting the sites nor refunding the amounts received amounts to deficiency in service.
8. There is no merit in the contention that these complainants are not a ‘Consumer’ as defined under the Act and the complaints are barred by limitation. When once Ops have accepted deposits towards allotment of sites, till the sites are allotted or the amount is refunded recurring cause of action arises to claim the relief’s. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the complainants are entitled for the relief’s for refund of the amount paid with interest at 18% p.a. by way of compensation along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- each. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaints filed by the complainants allowed in part.
In complaint No.2132/2011 Ops are directed to refund an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 10.09.2008 till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.
In complaint No.2133/2011 Ops are directed to refund an amount of Rs.4,05,000/- 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.
In complaint No.2134/2011 Ops are directed to refund an amount of Rs.4,05,000/- 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.
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.2132/2011 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 10th day of JULY– 2012.)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
CS.,
