COMPLAINTS FILED ON:13.03.2012

DISPOSED ON:30.06.2012  

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

30^th DAY OF JUNE-2012

  PRESENT:-  SRI. B.S. REDDY                    PRESIDENT

                      SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA                     MEMBER               

COMPLAINT Nos. 520, 521, 522, 523,

                           524, 525, 526, 527,

                           528, 529, 530, 531,

            532/2012

COMMON ORDER

SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT

All these complaints by the respective complainants U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 seeking direction against the Opposite Parties (herein after called as O.Ps) to refund the sital value deposited with interest and for compensation on the allegation of deficiency in service.

Since the Managing Partner of the different projects shown as Ops in these complaints is common, 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:

As per the advice and assurance of the OP that the investments made with them would yield high returns with no risk factors, the complainants invested the amounts by booking the sites in various projects proposed to be formed under name and style “Presidency Elite, Aerozonna, Royal County, Royal Enclave, New County and Global Citi” at Doddamarahalli, Yelluvahally, Varamallenahalli, Nandi Hobli, Chikkaballapura Taluk, Kolar District, at Thattamachanahalli Amanikere Village, Bulluhalli Village and Venkatagirikote Village, Vijayapura Hobli, Devenahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, at Huyilala Village, Yelavala Hobli, Mysore Taluk, Mysore District, at Maratikyatanahalli Village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk, Mysore District, at Ittamadu Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagarm Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, at Kodigehalli, Mandur Village, Bidrahalli Hobli, K.R.Puram, Bangalore East Taluk.

3. The OP failed to fulfill its obligation of forming the layouts and allotting the sites as agreed under the deed of agreements executed.    OP has issued the receipts acknowledging the receipt of the amounts from these complainants.    The details of the amounts paid, the site numbers and the projects are as shown in the below chart.   

After receipt of the initial sale consideration towards the cost of the sites assured to be allotted to the complainants, OP neither formed any layouts and allotted the sites nor refunded the amounts received from these complainants.    The complainants felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP and approached this Forum seeking relief’s stated above.

4.   On appearance Op filed version taking similar contentions in all these complaints.   In the version filed OP admitted the fact of receipt of the amounts from these complainants, execution of the agreement deeds and the receipts as shown in the above chart.   The defence of the OP is the previous Government in order to approve the Master Plan had banned land conversion and layout development from July-2006 because of which the OP was not able to get any conversion or approval any plan from the concerned authority.   The Government by approving the Master Plan, the land lock was unlocked and now OP has applied for conversion and approval of the layouts, the projects are very much on and it shall be completed within a period of 6 months.    The act of OP in not forming the layouts is not intentional, but due to a bonafide reason and OP has not committing any deficiency in service.    The complaints are bad for non-joinder of other partners as necessary parties.     The complainants are not Consumers, the disputes are not Consumer Disputes.   The complaints are barred by limitation.   Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaints.

5.   The complainants in order to substantiate complaint averments, each of them have filed affidavit evidence and produced documents.   The Managing Partner of Op filed affidavit evidence in support of the defence version.

6. Arguments on both sides heard.

7.   Points for consideration are:

     Point No.1:-  Whether the complainants proved the          

                         deficiency in service on the part of

                           the OP?

       Point No.2:- Whether the complainants are entitled

                   for the reliefs now claimed?

     Point No.3:- To what Order?

8.   We have gone through the pleadings the documents produced, affidavit evidence of both parties and arguments advanced. On the basis of these we record our findings for the reasons stated below as under:

              Point No.1:- Affirmative,

              Point No.2:- Affirmative in part,

              Point No.3:- As per final Order.

R E A S O N S

9. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainants after going through the brochure and advertisements issued by OP in respect of the proposed layouts shown in the above chart paid initial sale consideration and booked the sites.  The OP has executed the agreement deeds and issued the receipts acknowledging the receipt of the amounts.    Op is not disputing the fact of receipt of the payments as shown in the above chart.  The main defence of the OP is in order to approve the Master Plan the State Government banned conversions and approval of the layouts since-2006.  Recently the Master Plan has been approved and the Government has unlocked the land lock OP has applied for conversions and approval of the layouts.    The projects are likely to be completed within 6 months with approval of the statutory authorities.    In our view, OP has not produced any material to show that he has applied for conversion and approval of the layouts.   No title deeds are produced to prove that OP has acquired any lands for the proposed formation of the layouts.   Without acquiring any land for the purpose of formation of layouts OP made these complainants to part with huge amounts towards initial sale consideration for the sites proposed to be formed.     The complainants cannot be made to wait indefinitely till OP obtains conversion Order and approval of the layouts.    When OP was not able to form any layout and allot the sites, it would have been fair enough on its part to refund the amounts received as initial sale consideration to complainants.  

            There is no merit in the contention that the complaints are barred by limitation and that these complainants are not Consumers and the Disputes are not Consumer Disputes.   The initial sale consideration received for allotment of the sites, includes the amounts towards service charges of OP forming the layout as such the complainants have paid the consideration for the service to be rendered by OP as such the complainants are Consumers as defined Under Section-21(1)(d) of the Act.    When once OP has accepted the initial deposits towards the value of the sites booked, till the sites are allotted and sale deeds are executed, the complainants are having regarding recurring cause of action to file the complaints.

10.The Managing Partner of OP issued the receipts and executed the agreement deeds in favour of the complainants.    The other partners of OP are not necessary parties, as the Managing Partner representing the OP has entered into transactions.    Therefore, it cannot be said that the complaints are bad for non-joinder of other partners of Op as necessary parties.    The act of OP not forming the layout and registering the sale deeds by allotting the sites or refunding the amount received as initial sale consideration amounts to deficiency in service.   The complainants have claimed refund of the amount along with compensation and interest.   The learned Counsel for the Op contended that interest at 12% can be awarded but in our view in similar matters in all other cases against the same OP interest at 18% p.a. by way of compensation has been awarded.    Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the complainants are entitled for refund of the amounts 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.520/2012 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.8,64,000/- 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.521/2012 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.7,62,500/- 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.522/2012 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.3,37,500/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 08.01.2007, till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.

In complaint No.523/2012 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.4,32,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 23.03.2008, till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.

In complaint No.524/2012 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.3,45,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the respective date payments, till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.

In complaint No.525/2012 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 15.04.2006, till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.

In complaint No.526/2012 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.4,32,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the respective date payments, till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.

In complaint No.527/2012 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.4,87,000/- 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.528/2012 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.4,92,000/- 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.529/2012 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 09.02.2008, till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.

In complaint No.530/2012 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.2,55,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 20.09.2007, till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.

In complaint No.531/2012 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.3,90,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the respective date of payemnts, till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.

In complaint No.532/2012 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.3,45,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 23.03.2008, 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.520/2012 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 30^th day of JUNE– 2012.)

MEMBER                                                         PRESIDENT

CS.,