COMPLAINTS FILED ON:10.05.2011
DISPOSED ON:30.11.2011.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
30th DAY OF NOVEMBER-2011
PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER
SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT Nos.892/2011 & 893/2011
Complaint no.892/2011 ComplAINANT | Smt.A.Sagaya Mary W/o Sri.R.John Alphonse, Aged about 52 years, No.427, 7th C Main, HRBR Layout I Block, Kalyan Nagar, Inperson. V/s |
Complaint no.893/2011 ComplAINANTS | R.John Alphonse, Aged about 62 years, No.427, 7th C Main, BRBR Layout I Block, Kalyan Nagar, Bangalore-560 043. Inperson. |
OPPOSITE PARTY | V.Bhaskar Reddy, Managing Partner, M/s My County Project, No.717, Poornashri Complex, 2nd Floor, II Stage, West of Chord Road, Modi Hospital Road, Basaveshwar Nagar, Bangalore-560 086. (Adv:Sri.G.S.Suresh |
O R D E R
SRI. B.S. REDDY, PRESIDENT
These two complaints by the respective complainants U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 are seeking direction against the OP to refund the advance sale consideration with interest at 18% p.a. and damages of Rs.2,00,000/- on the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
Since OP is common in both these complaints, the questions involved and the relief’s claimed are similar, in order to avoid the repetition of facts and multiplicity of reasoning’s, both these complaints are stand disposed of by this common order.
2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows:
The OP launched numerous projects to form a residential layouts in and around Bangalore City under the name and Style of different projects and issued an advertisement and publicity inviting General Public to buy the sites to be formed in the layouts. The complainants being attracted by the said advertisement booked sites and paid advance sale consideration of Rs.2,67,500/- in respect of flat No.727 proposed to be formed in My County Project in complaint No.892/2011, an amount of Rs.2,82,500/- in respect of plot No.726 C in the same layout in complaint No.893/2011. OP executed sale agreements stipulating the terms and conditions. OP was unable to form the layout, on account of that these complainants demanded for refund of the amount paid. OP failed to refund the amount, the complainants felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP and approached with these complaints.
3. In the version filed OP contended that the State Government banned Land Conversion and layout development from July-2006, the land lock was only for one year, it was extended from time to time and now the said land lock is unlock by approving the Master Plan. OP applied for conversion and approval of the layout from the concerned authorities. The process of completion of project is very much on and it shall be completed within a period of 6 months and OP do not want to loose the customer. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of other partners of the firm as necessary parties. Further complainant is barred by limitation and complainants are not “Consumers” as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaints.
4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, each of these complainants filed affidavit evidence. OP filed affidavit evidence in support of defence version.
5. Arguments on both sides heard.
6. Points for consideration are as under:
Point No.1:- Whether the complainants have
proved the deficiency in service
on the part of the OP?
Point No.2:- If so, whether the complainants
are entitled for the relief’s
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
The undisputed facts are that, these complainants being attracted by the advertisement and propaganda made by the OP regarding proposed layout to be formed and to allot the sites, each of these complainants deposited initial sale consideration and entered into an agreement of sale to purchase the sites to be formed in the proposed layout called ‘M/s My County’. The complainant in complaint No.892/2011 paid initial sale consideration of Rs.2,67,500/- in respect of plot No.727 and the complainant in complaint No.893/2011 paid initial sale consideration of Rs.2,82,500/- in respect of site No.726(C) both measuring 30 X 50 feet proposed to be formed in the layout called “My County”. OP has issued the receipt acknowledging the receipt of the initial sale consideration and executed the agreement deeds on 30.11.2006. OP was unable to form the layout as the Government is stated to have banned land conversion and approval of the layout. Now it is stated that the Government has approved the Master Plan and OP has applied for conversion and approval of layout, the same is likely to be completed within a period of 6 months. It may be noted that the complainants have paid the initial sale consideration in the month of November-2006 till day OP is unable to form any layout and allot the sites. The complainants cannot be made to wait indefinitely till OP gets conversion and layout approval. The act of OP neither informing the layout and allotting the sites nor refunding the initial sale consideration received from these complainants amounts to deficiency of service on his part.
8. There is no merit in the contention that complaint is barred by limitation and the same is bad for non-joinder of other partners as necessary parties and complainants are not “Consumer” as defined under the act. When once OP has accepted initial sale consideration, till the sites are allotted and sale deeds are executed, the cause of action accrues to the complainants continuous. OP as a Managing Partner has executed the agreement deeds, the other partners are not necessary parties. OP has received initial advance sale consideration which includes the service charges for development of the layout as such the complainants are consumers as defined under the Act. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the complainants are entitled for refund of the amount with interest at 18% p.a. as compensation from the date of agreement deeds till the date of realization along with litigation costs 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.892/2011 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.2,67,500/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 30.11.2006, till the date of realization and pay litigation costs of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.
In complaint No.893/2011 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.2,82,500/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 30.11.2006, till the date of realization and pay litigation costs of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.
OP to comply the order within four weeks from the date of this order.
Send the copy of this order to both the parties free of cost.
This original order shall be kept in the file of the complaint No.892/2011 and a copy of it shall be placed in other complaint.
(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 30th day of NOVEMBER– 2011.)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Cs.
