COMPLAINT FILED: 17.11.2009<br /> DISPOSED ON: 22.06.2010<br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 22ND JUNE 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2678/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri. V.A. Patil,<br /> S/o A B Patil,<br /> Aged about 53 years,<br /> Residing at No.158,<br /> 4th Cross, 2nd Stage,<br /> Arekere, MICO Layout,<br /> Bannerghatta Main Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 076.<br /> <br /> Advocate : C.M.Desai <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY M/s. My County<br /> Having its registered office at<br /> No.895/1, ‘Skanda’ <br /> 14th Cross, <br /> Mahalakshmi Layout, <br /> Bangalore-560 086.<br /> <br /> Represented by its Partner<br /> Sri. Bhaskar Reddy.<br /> <br /> Advocate : Dhananjaya C.P<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to execute and register the Sale deed in respect of Plot bearing No.1082 in “My County” layout at Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District or in alternative to refund the advance amount of Rs.2,25,000/- together with interest at 18% P.A from the date receipt of payment till realization and to pay compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- for harassment, mental agony, Legal expenses, cost of transportation and correspondences on the allegation of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> 2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant lured away with the offer made by the OP in the leading news paper, stating OP is engaged in the business of forming of layouts and distributing residential sites to its members under the name and style ‘‘MY COUNTY’’ at Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore. Complainant became its member for purchasing a plot and entered into Sale agreement dt: 21.11.2006 with OP. Total cost of the Plot being Rs.6,75,000/-, complainant paid an advance amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- by way of two Cheques at: 26.10.2006 for Rs.1,00,000 and dt: 31.10.2006 for Rs. 1,25,000/- drawn on UTI Bank for purchasing a plot No.1082 situated in My County layout at Chikka Hullur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, totally measuring 1500 Sq.ft. OP promised the complainant that BMRDA approval is under process for sanctioning layout plan. The copy of the agreement is produced. The cash receipts issued by OP are produced. Thereafter OP failed to develop and register said property in favour of the complainant for the one or the other reason. Till date OP has not yet commenced said project for almost three and half years now. It is still a barren land without any developmental work. The repeated requests made by complainant went in vain. Complainant caused Legal notice on 28.10.2009, calling upon OP to register the plot or to refund the advance amount with interest within 15 days. In reply OP offered alternative site formed in their new layouts at Mysore District and also ready to refund the amount within four months. Complainant is not interested in alternate site at Mysore district and also not in a position to wait for four months. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service against the O.P. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint for the necessary relief’s.<br /> <br /> 3. On appearance OP filed version admitting the membership of the complainant and receipt of advance amount of Rs.2,25,000/- towards purchase of plot No.1082 situated at My County, Chikka Hullur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hoskote, Taluk, as per the Sale agreement dt: 21.11.2006 and further agreed to receive the balance sale consideration within one month from the date of getting the approval of the layout plan from BMRDA. Further OP admits the issuance of legal notice and the reply offering alternative site at their other layouts called. M/s. Royal County and M/s. Royal orchids at Mysore Taluk. It is contended for the OP that it had informed the complainant that the project was incomplete because of not getting the conversion order from the concerned authority due to global economic crisis and due to present financial crisis and global depreciation. BMRDA in order to approve master plan for magadi, Nelamangala Kanakapura, Hoskote, Anekal, Bidadi and Ram Nagara had banned land conversion from July 2007; Hence OP was not able to get conversion order from the concerned authority; OP is also ready to return the booking amount; There is no deficiency in service on its part; Among other grounds, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced cash receipts, sale agreement dt: 21.11.2006 and legal notice, reply notice. On behalf of OP its partner Mr. V. Bhaskar Reddy filed his affidavit evidence and produced copies of paper publication regarding removal of ban on conversion of land. Complainant submitted written arguments. Heard arguments on complainant side, taken as heard for OP. <br /> <br /> 5. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both affidavit and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> <br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> <br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 7. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant approached the OP who are engaged in forming of layout in the name and style “My County” and intended to purchase Plot No.1082 situated at “My county” layout Chikka Hullur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, measuring 1500 Sq.fts. for a total Sale consideration of Rs.6,75,000/-. Accordingly complainant entered into an agreement of the sale dt. 21.11.2006 with OP and paid Rs.2,25,000/- by way of Cheque dated 26.10.2006 and 31.10.2006 towards advance Sale consideration. OP agreed to receive the balance consideration amount within one month from the date of BMRDA approval and register the Sale deed in favour of the complainant. Copy of the agreement of sale is produced. Inspite of repeated requests when complainant did not receive any information from OP about the BMRDA approval complainant caused the legal notice on 28.10.2009, calling upon OP to register plot or to refund the advance amount with interest within 15 days. In reply on 09.11.2009 OP offered alternative Site situated at their new layouts namely M/s. Royal County and M/s. Royal orchids at Mysore. It complainant is not interested OP was ready to refund the amount within four months. Since complainant not interested in the alternative Site at Mysore and also not in a position to wait for four months approached this forum. <br /> <br /> 8. In the version filed by OP it is contended that due to not getting the conversion order from the concerned authority, due to global economic crisis and global depreciation, the project was incomplete since July 2007. In the affidavit evidence OP states that now OP is in a process of applying for the conversion and approval of the layout from the concerned authorities. That means without having any title over the land OP has accepted the advance amount from the complainant and entered into agreement to sell before obtaining approval and conversion order from the statutory authorities. This act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Though OP admits to refund the amount in the reply notice has not shown its bonafide even after filing this complaint. When OP was aware of the fact that it cannot execute the Sale deed it could have fairly refunded the amount to the complainant. OP has retained the amount for more than three and half years with an intention to gain wrongfully so as to cause wrongful loss to the complainant. This act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service on its part. We are satisfied that complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service against the OP. Under the circumstances we are of the considered view that complainant is entitled for refund of amount with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. <br /> <br /> 9. Complainant has failed to produce any documents to show that there are any plots free from encumbrances readily available at the disposal of the OP as on today. Hence his prayer for execution of sale deed cannot be considered. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.2,25,000/- together with interest at 9% p.a. from 01.11.2006 till the date of payment along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. <br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication. <br /> <br /> (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 22nd day of June 2010.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> gm. <br /> <br />