O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:<br /> <br /> The grievance of the complainant against the Op in brief is, that lured by the publication of the Op offering plots at Mysore he applied for providing two plots bearing No.494 and 495 in the name as Royal Enclave. That he entered into an agreement with the Op on 13/03/2008 for purchase of those two sites at Rs.680/- per sq. ft for a total consideration of Rs.10,20,000/-. Out of total consideration he was required to pay Rs.3,40,000/- each towards each of this sites as advance money and accordingly he has paid a total sum of Rs.6,80,000/- to the Op. That the Op who had promised to execute registered sale deed after receipt of balance amount, has failed and neglected to perform part of his obligation by executing title deeds. Then he wrote a letter to the Op on 15/12/2009 either to execute title deeds or to repay money but the Op instead of complying the request sent a reply stating that registration of sites has started and to contact their Marketing Manager for further information. Then he on 25/01/2009 addressed a letter to the Marketing Manager to know further details and to transfer the sties but nothing came out. The Marketing Manager did not respond to that letter sent to him. Then he got a legal notice issued demanding refund of the advance money with interest, the Op sent reply stating as if MUDA has approved the layout and the registration will be done but Op has failed to allot site or to refund the money and therefore, has prayed for a direction to Op to refund his advance money with interest and to award compensation with cost.<br /> <br /> 2. Op has appeared through his advocate and filed version admitting to had entered into two agreements of sale with the complainant on 13/03/2008 for selling site No.494 and 495. Further admitted receipt of advance amount of Rs.6,80,000/-. The delay of Op in providing site to the complainant was due to delay in getting conversion order and due to global economic crises. It is further stated conversion orders have been issued and that registration is already going on and stated that he is ready to execute registered sale deed but despite this complaint is filed and has therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and Op have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant along with the complaint has produced a copy of brochure issued by the Op, copies of agreement of sale and copies of correspondences that took place between them with a copy of legal notice and reply sent by the Op to that notice. We have heard the counsel for both the 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 providing site as agreed under the agreement or in not refunding the advance money paid?<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 evident from the allegations of the complainant and admissions of Op, we find no difference between the parties with regard to an agreement of sale entered into between the complainant and the Op dated 13/03/2008 under which Op had agreed to sell plot No.494 and 495 and advance payment paid Rs.6,80,000/- to the Op towards part consideration of sites proposed to be sold. The Op in the version and also in the affidavit evidence admitted that there has been delay in performing part of his contract as agreed under the agreement but stated the delay was because of not getting conversion order for conversion of land and global economic crisis. But the Op has not placed any materials before us to prove that those two reasons came in his way of progress in formation of layout.<br /> <br /> 7. The Op in the version and affidavit evidence has contended as if conversion order has been issued and they have started registration of sites and he is ready to provide site. But we find no bonafides in the said offer made by the Op and the defense canvassed. Because when the complainant addressed a letter to Op in not providing site, Op sent a reply on 07/01/2010 stating as if they have already started registering sites, then complainant sent a letter to the Marketing Manager of Op requesting him to furnish certain particulars regarding registration of the sites for which Op did not respond. Then the complainant got issued a legal notice on 06/03/2010 highlighting delay in performance of the Op the part of the duty as agreed under the agreement and called upon the Op to refund his money for which Op sent a reply on 29/03/2010 expressing global finance crisis which is not yet recovered and because of that reason sale transaction is getting delayed and therefore made clear that final allotment of sites and registration could not be done. The Op as evident from these correspondences has from time to time went on pleading global crises and recession which came in their way in completing the project. Therefore, it is stated even little earlier to filing of this complaint the Op pleaded his inability in keeping up his promise, as made in the agreement. Even at the time of enquiry of this complaint and even at the time of arguments Op was not in a position to submit before us about readily availability of the sites for allotment to the complainant and his preparedness to provide site. The complainant after finding this inordinate delay in the Op in not performing part of his function and the complainant finding no progress in the formation of layout has chosen to take back his money which cannot be in our view held as improper or illegal. Therefore, complaint needs to be allowed and we thus answer point No.1 in the affirmative and pass the following order.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is allowed. <br /> <br /> Op is ordered to refund Rs.6,80,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 16% p.a from the date of payment of that amount till it is repaid. Op shall refund that amount within 60 days from the date of this order.<br /> <br /> Op shall also pay cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the Open forum on this the 20th August 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />