BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 01^st DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

The OPs in all these 3 complaints are one and the same and issues involved in these petitions are the same.  Therefore, these three complaints have taken up together for disposal by this common order.

2. The complainants have filed their respective petitions U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OPs) with a prayer to direct the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.3,01,116/- paid by each of them to the OPs together with interest @ 18% p.a and Rs.25,000/- towards compensation, Rs.10,000/- towards damages and costs.

3. The brief averments made in these complaints are as under:

The OP-1 namely Sanathana Dharma Parirakshana Trust with an intention to form a layout known as ‘Shankara Agraharam’ in Bagepalli Taluk, Chikkabalapura District around 75 Kms from Bangalore issued brochures informing the public about its projects.  In response to the brochure published each of the complainants, submitted plot allotment application on 29.12.2012 to OP-1.  Each of the complainants paid a sum of Rs.3,01,116/- by way of cheque drawn on ICICI Bank dated 07.01.2013 in favour of OP-1 towards price of the site.  The OP-1 issued receipt in favour of each of the complainants on 07.01.2013.  The OP-1 informed the complainants that the allotment number and also issued plot allotment letter confirmation on 07.01.2013.

The complainants visited the site place, OP-1 intended to develop township and on such visit the complainants came to know that no development activities have taken place and there is no proper infrastructure in and around the proposed township and no layout has been formed.  Therefore, on 29.04.2013 the father/husband of the complainant informed the OP-1 that they are withdrawing offer to purchase the site at “Shankara Agraharm” Township and requested for refund of the amount paid by them by letter dated 29.04.2013.  The complainants also forwarded the original receipts along with letter dated 08.05.2013 requesting the OPs to refund them the amount paid by them.  The father/husband of the complainant/s wrote another letter dated 03.07.2013 to refund the amount at an early date as they are not interested in having site in the Township formed by the OPs.

The terms and conditions of the plot allotment confirmation letter dated 07.01.2013 issued by the OPs clearly stipulates that the allottee may withdraw the application at any time before the processing of the allotment of plots and their money will be refunded immediately upon receiving the request letter.  In response to the letter of the complainants for refund of the money the Chairman and Managing Trustee of OP-1 confirmed the receipt of letter of withdrawal along with the original receipt No.279/280/281 and in the said letter the OPs informed that the request for withdrawal is to be placed before the Board of Advisory Committee which is to be held on 24.07.2013.  The copy of the said letter dated 22.06.2013 issued by the OP-1 is produced.  The complainants were under the bonafide impression that the OPs would refund the amount received by them and since they did not receive any amount from the OPs despite assurance given by them over phone they were forced to approach this Forum for refund of the money.  That the non refund of the amount paid towards the allotment of sites amounts to deficiency of service within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act.  The Township as promised by the OPs has not been formed and there are no basic amenities available.  The OPs are liable to refund the money paid by the complainants together with interest @ 18% p.a from the date of withdrawal till the date of payment.  Both OPs are jointly and severally liable to refund the amount of the complainants.  The OPs are liable to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to each of the complainants towards mental agony undergone by the complainant and Rs.10,000/- towards damages together with cost of the proceedings. 

4. In response to the notice issued, the OPs appeared through their advocate and filed their version through CEO of OP-1 and LOA holder of OP-2 contending in brief are as under:

The complaints filed by the complainants are not maintainable, since there is no allegations of any unfair trade practice, deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. It is true that the OPs formed a Satvik layout in the name and style of “Shankara Agraharam” in Bagepalli Taluk, Chikkaballapura District and announced the sale of the sites at an affordable price for the benefits of Brahmin Community members.  The complainants became the members of the OP and applied for a site and also made payment towards value of the sites.  An allotment number was assigned to the complainants by a confirmation letter dated 09.01.2013.  The OPs kept the job of layout formation in a full swing.  The allotment of sites was done in favour of the complainants by 09.01.2013.  Therefore, they are not entitled for refund of the money paid towards value of the site.

The OPs sent invitation to the complainants and members of the family to attend the Prathistapana Function of Lord Ganesha Temple at the site on 28^th April 2013 and all of them attended the function and praised the OPs.  OPs sent a letter to the complainants and their family members on 15^th July asking them to be present on 27/28^th July 2013 for identification of sites.  However, the complainants didn’t turn up for the reasons best known to them.  However, to their surprise the OPs received a letter of withdrawal from the complainants.  The OPs contacted the complainants over phone and told them that they are culling out sites as per the allotment very shortly and would be sending the letters within a week.  The OPs started registration of 1^st Phase sites from 20^th April 2013.  The allegations that there was no formation of sites are totally false and baseless as the OPs even started registration of the sites in 1^st phase.  Many members were requesting for registration of the sites in the second phase.

The OPs had performed Mandala puja on 23^rd November 2013 along with Gana Homa.  The Chairman and Managing Trustee Sri.V.P Rao spoke to the complainants several times.  When the registration of the sites was in progress, the complainants were certainly not justified in withdrawing themselves from the project.  The complainants who needed money for something else suddenly started blaming the OPs without any basis.  The allegations of the complainants that non refund of the amount, would amounts to deficiency of service is denied as false that the OPs are ready to register and hand over the sites to the complainants at any time as per the terms and they would perform their liability.  That the other allegations of mental agony, loss etc., are all false.  The complainants are not at all entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the complaints.

For the aforesaid reasons, the OPs prayed for rejection of the complaints.

5. Subsequent to filing of version by the OPs, the complainants filed their evidence by way of affidavit.  The OPs failed to lead any evidence on their behalf despite sufficient time and opportunity given.  The complainant filed their written arguments.  However, the OPs failed to submit any written arguments on their behalf as well as oral arguments.  Heard the arguments advanced by the learned advocate for the complainants.

6. Perused the allegations made in the complaint, the affidavit evidence of the complainants, their written submission as well as the documents relief upon by them.  Also perused the averments made in the version filed by the OPs.

7. On the rival contentions of the parties, the points that arise for our determination in these cases are as under:

        8. Our answer to the above issues are as under:

REASONS

9. Admittedly the OP-1 M/s.Sanathana Dharma Parirakshana Trust undertook formation of a residential layout under the name and style “Shankara Agraharam” in Bagepalli Taluk, Chikkaballapura District abutting National Highway-7 around 75 kms from Bangalore.  The said layout was for the benefit of members of Brahmin Community only and the sites were at an affordable price for the benefit of community members.  It is not in dispute that each of the complainants applied for a residential sites and each one of them paid a sum of Rs.3,01,116/- to the OPs by way of cheque dated 07.01.2013 drawn on ICICI Bank.  The xerox copy of statement of account issued by ICICI Bank also confirms the payment of the said amount in favour of OPs.  OPs in their version also admitted the receipt of sum of Rs.3,01,116/- towards the price of the site by each one of the complainants.  The complainants have produced the copies of membership registration form,  receipt issued by the OPs for having received Rs.3,01,116/- dated 07.01.2013 from each one of them, plot allotment confirmation letter dated 07.01.2013.

10. According to the complainants, they visited the proposed township and on such visits they found that no development activities have taken place in the proposed township and there are no proper infrastructure facilities in and around township and even the layout has not been formed by the OPs.  The complainants contended that they decided withdraw from purchasing the sites at the said ‘Shankara Agraharam’ project and accordingly requested the OPs by their letter dated 29.04.2013 to refund the amount paid by them.  The complainants have also forwarded the original receipts along with their letter dated 08.05.2013 addressed to the OPs and the receipt of the same is also confirmed by the OPs by their letter dated 22^nd June 2013, the copy of which is produced by the complainants.  In the said letter the OP-2 in the capacity of Chairman and Managing Trustee of OP-1 has informed that their letters of withdrawal are being placed before the Board of Advisory Committee which is supposed to meet on 24^th July 2013 and he would get back to the complainants immediately after the meeting concludes.  From the said letter dated 22^nd June 2013 the OPs have agreed, in principal, to refund the money to the complainants immediately after the meeting of Advisory Committee which was scheduled on 24^th July 2013.

11. The Learned Advocate for the complainants brought to our notice clause-11 of the terms and conditions of plot allotment confirmation letter issued by the OPs, which reads as under;

The Allottee may withdraw their application at any time before the process of allotment of plots.  Their monies shall be refunded in full immediately upon receiving their request in writing.

The plain reading of the said clause empowers the applicants of the plots to withdraw his/her application any time before the process of allotment of plots and money paid by them shall be refunded in full immediately upon receiving his/her request in writing.  The complainants have made their requests of withdrawal in writing and they have also surrendered the original receipts, which was confirmed by the OPs in their version.

12. OPs contended that the complainants are not entitled for refund since the process of allotment of plots had already begun at the time when they received the letters of withdrawal from the complainants.  However, the letter of OPs dated 22.06.2013 referred supra makes it abundantly clear that the allotment of plots had not yet begun at the time when the complainants submitted their letters of withdrawal.  Further the OPs have also not produced any material to show that any particular sites were allotted to the complainants before receiving their letter of withdrawal.  More over the OPs also have not lead any evidence to substantiate the averments made in their version.  The letter of OPs dated 22.06.2013 itself is sufficient to come to the conclusion that none of the complainants were allotted any sites on the date they submitted their letter of withdrawal to the OPs.  Further in the said letter, the OPs did not refuse to refund the money received from each of the complainants.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that in terms of clause-11 reproduced supra, the OPs are liable to refund each of the complainants a sum of Rs.3,01,116/- received by them towards price of site.

13. The OPs have not assigned any reasons for their failure to refund the money of the complainants despite receiving their written request in conformity with clause-11 the plot confirmation letter.  This conduct of OPs in not refunding the amount to the complainants amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  The OPs have absolutely no right to with held the refund of the said amount to the complainants.  The complainants have also produced the copies of letters dated 08.05.2013 & 03.07.2013 addressed to the complainants requesting them to refund their money at an early date.  However, for the reasons best known to them the OPs have failed to refund the amount without their being any valid reasons.  Therefore, they are also liable to pay adequate compensation to the complainants for having made them to suffer hardship, inconvenience and mental agony.  Accordingly, we answer issue No.1.

14. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the OPs shall have to be directed to refund a sum of Rs.3,01,116/- together with interest @ 9% p.a from 1^st of May 2013 till the date of realization.  Further they shall have to be directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to each one of the complainants together with litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-.

15. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:  

  O R D E R

The complaint Nos.30/2014, 31/2014 & 32/2014 are filed by the complainants U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are allowed in part.  OPs.1 & 2 are hereby directed to refund a sum of Rs.3,01,116/- together with interest @ 9% p.a from 1^st of May 2013 till the date of realization to each one of the complainants.

Further the OPs are directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- together with litigation cost of Rs.3,000/- to each one of the complainants.

The OPs shall comply the order passed by this Forum within six weeks from today.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

This original order shall be kept in the file of the complaint No.30/2014 and a copy of it shall be placed in other connected files.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 01^st day of September 2015)

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln*