Date of Filing:14.08.2009<br /> Date of Order:31.10.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1972 OF 2009<br /> <br /> S.N. Sathyanarayana<br /> S/o. S. Narasimhamurthy RAo<br /> Chief Manager, Vijaya Bank<br /> 31, Palani Towers<br /> Venkatanarayan Road, T. Nagar<br /> Chennai 600 017 Complainant<br /> V/S<br /> M/s. Megacity (Bangalore)<br /> Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd.<br /> No. 1, 5th Cross, Chandraloka Apts.<br /> Gandhinagar, Bangalore 560 009<br /> Rep. by Managing Director<br /> C.P. Yogeshwar Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant.<br /> The facts of the case are that the opposite party launched housing project known as Megacity and promised to allot sites. The complainant has paid monthly installments as agreed regularly. Opposite party had agreed to execute sale deed. Opposite party has received total sum of Rs. 78,000/-. Complainant requested the opposite party to execute sale deed. There were several correspondence between parties. Complainant ultimately issued legal notice on 10.07.2009. Opposite party failed to comply the demand. Hence, the complainant prayed that opposite party be directed to refund the amount collected from him along with interest and compensation.<br /> 2. After admitting the complaint notice issued to the opposite party through RPAD. Opposite party put in his appearance through advocate and defence version filed stating that opposite party is a registered company. The opposite party has admitted the payments made by the complainant. It is the case of the opposite party that due to several legal hurdles the layout could not be formed. Therefore, not able to allot the site. Since, the land has been notified by the KIADB for formation of industrial layout, the opposite party cannot secure the conversion order and execute the sale deed. The opposite party has communicated to all the members to receive back their advance amount since the opposite party is not in a position to complete the project.<br /> 3. Arguments are heard. Perused the complaint, defence version and documents.<br /> 4. The points for consideration are:<br /> 1. Whether the complainant is entitled for refund of amount with interest?<br /> 2. Whether there was deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?<br /> <br /> 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party fairly submitted during the course of argument that the complainant has paid Rs. 76,700/- to the opposite party and to that effect the opposite party has maintained the account in the account books. The complainant has produced letter of the opposite party dated 04.07.2000. From this letter also it is clear that Rs. 64,700/- is received towards cost of site and Rs. 12,000/- was received towards development cost. In this way total amount of Rs. 76,700/- was received by the opposite party. The complainant has confused himself that the opposite party has given discount of 10% i.e. Rs. 1,300/-. Including this discount amount sum of Rs. 78,000/- is shown as received in the letter. But, the actual payment made by the complainant is only Rs. 76,700/-. Therefore, for this amount there is absolutely no dispute. The opposite party has fairly come forward to refund the amount on the ground that layout could not be formed due to so many litigations and legal hurdles. The opposite party has asked its members to take back the amount paid by them. Several complaints have been disposed off by the District Forum and also Hon’ble State Commission against the present opposite party M/s. Megacity and the Hon’ble State Commission has awarded interest at 12% p.a. on the refund amount and those judgements have been confirmed by Hon’ble National Commission. The learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that as per the judgements of Hon’ble State Commission and National Commission interest at 12% p.a. be granted in this case also. So taking into consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case it would be just, fair and reasonable to grant interest at 12% p.a. on the amount of Rs. 76,700/-. The complainant has prayed Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation towards mental agony. Since, the Hon’ble State Commission and National Commission are of the opinion that grant of interest will take care off and compensation not being awarded in the nature of present cases. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any compensation. The complainant has not made out any case for grant of compensation for mental agony etc. Nothing has been placed on record as to how and why the complainant is entitled for grant of compensation. Therefore, the prayer of the complainant in respect of compensation is not considered. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 76,700/- to the complainant along with 12% interest from 04.07.2000 till payment / realisation within four weeks from the date of this order.<br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br />