Date of Filing: 29/10/2011, 19.10.2011
Date of Order: 23/12/2011
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 20
Dated: 23rd DAY OF DECEMBER 2011
PRESENT
SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.Sc.,B.L., PRESIDENT
SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER
C.C. NO.2487 OF 2010
Mr.Yunus Ahemed,
Aged about 18 years,
S/o Nayaz Ahmed,
No.24/12, St.Michael’s School Road,
Shanthinagar, Banglaore – 560 027
Represented by his Power of Attorney
Mrs. Faruk Kaiser. …. Complainant No.1.
C.C. NO.2488 OF 2010
K.J.Thomas
Aged about 71 years,
S/o Late K.S.Joseph,
Residing at No.6/25A,
Good Shephered Estate,
Pillayar Koil Street, Middle Gudalur,
Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu – 643211 …. Complainant No.2.
C.C. NO.2489 OF 2010
Smt.Geetha Venkatesh
W/o N.S.Venkatesh
Aged about 43 years,
No.17, Sapthagirinilaya,
AMCO Layout, Opp:Impact College,
Sahakaranagar Post, Bangalore-92
Represented by Power of Attorney
Sri.R.Armugam. …. Complainant No.3.
C.C. NO.1912 OF 2011
N.V. Kishore Babu,
Aged About 38 years,
S/o. N.Satyanarayana,
Rep. by GPA Holder N.Satyanarayana,
S/o. Ramasubbaiah Setty, 18396,
Rangaiahgari Street, Proddatur-516 360. …. Complainant No.4.
-V/s-
M/s Megacity (Bangalore) Developers
And Builders Pvt. Ltd.,
No.1, 5th Cross, Chandraloka Apartments,
Gandhinagar, Bangalore – 560 009.
Represented by its Managing Director
Mr.C.P.Yogeshwara. …. Opposite Party
BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
-: COMMON ORDER:-
Since all these matters are between different complainants and the same opposite party regarding similar matter all these complaints are taken up together for this Order and Common Order is passed and in each case one set of the order is kept. Herein afterwards, the complainant in C.C. No.2487/2010 will be referred to as Complainant No.1, the complainant in C.C. No.2488/2010 will be referred to as complainant No.2, the complainant in C.C. No.2489/2010 will be referred to as complainant No.3, the complainant in C.C. No.1912/2011 will be referred to as complainant No.4 and the opposite party will be referred to as opposite party respectively.
2. The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complaints U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the Opposite Party to register the sale deed with respect to the sites and to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant No.1, Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant No.2 and 3 and Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant No.4, are necessary:-
The opposite party had published that they are the repudiated developers and had launched Vajragiri Township at Mysore Road located just 24 Kms from Bangalore in an area of 500 acres of prime property and about an area of 250 acres being developed in the first phase. The brochures are published. On such, being attracted, the complainants became the member of the opposite party by paying the prescribed amount of Rs.200/-. An agreement was executed between the parties on 18.10.1995, 10.01.1995, 15.03.1996 by and between complainant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and the opposite party with respect to the sites to be formed in Vajragiri Township and sale price was also fixed, certain sites were allotted to all the complainants. Accordingly the complainant No.1 had paid Rs.4,32,200/-, the complainant No.2 had paid Rs.1,23,371/-, the complainant No.3 had paid Rs.84,050/- and the complainant No.4 had paid Rs.82,850/- towards the sale consideration, development charges, membership fee, etc., to the opposite party in monthly installments. Accordingly site No.6 in A-1 Block, Site No.1 in G-Block, Site No.6 in F-3 Block, Site No.206 in F-II Block first phase, Vajragiri Township has been allotted. Though certain possession certificates were given, neither sale deeds were registered nor layout were formed nor possession of the properties were given to the complainants. Hence notices were issued to the opposite party by the complainants. In spite of that the opposite party has not registered the sale deed. The intention of the opposite party is to sell the property to others at exorbitant price. Hence the complaint.
2. In brief the version of the opposite party are:-
The entering of the agreement, allotment of sites, receipt of the money, are all admitted. The owner of the land bearing Sy. No.7 situated at Manchanayakanahalli insisted to leave one acre out of 7 acres 9 guntas. Accordingly the site which was allotted to complainant No.1 is now in the land of the owner. The site which is allotted in the name of the complainant No.2 is in Sy. No.104, to which KIADB has issued preliminary notification to acquire the said land. The site which has been allotted in the name of the third complainant is in Sy. No.22, 23 and 25 of Hampapura Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and the owners of the land have refused to execute the sale deed. Hence the matter is pending before the competent Court in O.S. No.2527/2006 and 2529/2006. Only after completion of the said litigation the site could be formed or executed or registered. The site to be allotted to complainant No.4 is in Sy. No.28, but the owners of the land is not executed the sale deed in favour of the opposite party. The opposite party is intending to file suits for specific performance of the amendment of the same. Further the opposite party has taken action to get the land converted from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose it has made application. The BMICAPA has issued notice to the concerned revenue department not to convert the agricultural land for non-agricultural purpose regarding the lands in question. If all these proceedings are cleared then the opposite party will be in a position to allot sites or register the same. The opposite party is also ready to refund the amount. The claim is also barred by time.
3. To substantiate their respective cases the parties have filed their respective affidavits and documents. The arguments were heard.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
:- POINTS:-
- Whether there is deficiency in service?
- What Order?
5. Our findings are:-
Point (A) : In the Positive
Point (B) : As per detailed order
for the following:-
-:REASONS:-
Point A & B:-
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record, it is an admitted fact that the opposite party is a developer. It is getting the land purchased from the land lords, form layout, getting it converted and get members who will choose a particular site and after conversion the opposite party will allot the sites to the concerned. In all these cases it is an admitted fact that the complainants are the members of the opposite party and they wanted sites of particular dimension and they had paid the amounts in installments, but till today the opposite party has not formed the layout nor allotted the sites nor registered the sites in the names of the complainants. The complainants made several requests to the opposite party in this regard, but the opposite party has not cared to register the sites in favour of the complainant.
7. Merely the complainants have paid the money long back it does not mean that their claim is barred by time. Till the opposite party forms the sites forms the layout and delivers it to the complainants, till then, the cause of auction to file the complaint will remain. In this case the complainants have issued the notice, the opposite party has not declined to return the money or declined to allot the sites and register the sites. Hence the contention of the opposite party that the claim is barred by time is untenable one, it is well within the time. Receiving money from the complainants for the purpose of formation of the layout and allotting it and not allotting it is nothing but deficiency in service. Keeping others money investing it on the property getting the other benefits and not giving benefits to the complainants is nothing but an unfair trade practice.
8. It is also an admitted fact that the land in question were not permitted to be converted in to non-agricultural purposes. It is also an admitted fact that regarding certain lands there is a dispute with the owners, and the opposite party, has not become owner of the land and no layout has been formed and there are litigations. Only in Vajragiri Township the complainant wanted site but the site is not there. If the complainants wants any sites elsewhere this order will not come in that way from getting any other site in any other layout that is formed or to be formed by the opposite party, it they are entitled to and opposite party agrees to it. But however in this layout there is no site available for registration. Hence the complainants had to be refunded their money with interest.
9. It was contended during the course of the arguments that interest cannot be levied. The opposite party has kept the money of the complainant for long time, now the value of the land has gone sky high, hence they can sell any lands and pay the amounts back to the complainants. Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
- The complaints are Allowed-in-Part.
2. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.4,32,200/- to the complainant No.1 together with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from 18.10.1995; Rs.1,23,371/- to complainant No.2 together with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from 10.01.1995, Rs.84,050/- to complainant No.3 together with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from 10.12.2000; and Rs.66,000/- to complainant No.4 together with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from 15.03.1996 until payment within 30 days from the date of this order.
3. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- each to each of the complainants as costs of this litigation.
4. The opposite party is directed to comply with the above said order as ordered at Serial Nos. 2 & 3 above and submit the compliance report to this Forum with necessary documents within 45 days from the date of this order.
5. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
6. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.
7. The original copy of this order shall be kept in C.C. No.2487/2010 and the authenticated of the same shall be kept in each of the remaining cases i.e., C.C. Nos.2488/2010, 2489/2010 & 1912/2011 for reference.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 23rd Day of DECEMBER 2011).
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
