Date of Filing:18.11.2008<br /> Date of Order:31.01.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2009<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: 2478 OF 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> Mr. Sunil Philip D’Souza,<br /> S/o Bonlface D’Souza,<br /> R/at C/o Richard Fernandes,<br /> No.17/4A, Rose Dale,<br /> T. Dasarahalli, Near Old Check Post,<br /> Bangalore 57. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> 1. M/s Swagriha Builders & Developers,<br /> Having its registered office at,<br /> No.163, 9th Main, III Cross,<br /> R M V Extension, Bangalore-560 080,<br /> Represented by its Managing Partner.<br /> <br /> 2. Sri. L. Bharath Kumar,<br /> S/o M. Lokappa Gowda,<br /> Partner, M/s Swagriha Builders & Developers,<br /> Having its registered office at,<br /> No.163, 9th Main, III Cross,<br /> R M V Extension, Bangalore-560 080.<br /> <br /> 3. M. Lokappa Gowda,<br /> M/s Swagriha Builders & Developers,<br /> Having its registered office at,<br /> No.163, 9th Main, III Cross, <br /> R M V Extension, Bangalore-560 080. Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> The brief facts of the case are that, the opposite party No.2 is a registered partnership firm. Considering the attractive offer made by the opposite party the complainant opted for the project and booked a site. The opposite party executed an agreement of sale on 08/11/1996 in favour of the complainant. The complainant has paid an amount of Rs. 2,52,000/- towards consideration amount. Opposite parties have issued receipts. However, the opposite parties avoiding on one or the other pretext. Complainant got issued legal notice. Opposite parties neither executed the sale deed nor refunded the sale consideration amount. Complainant has been deprived of the life savings. The complainant prayed that the opposite party may be directed tot pay Rs.2,52,000/- with interest at 18% p.a from 29/03/2005 and the complainant has also prayed to grant compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. <br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite parties. Opposite parties put in appearance through Advocate and defense version filed. The opposite parties have clearly admitted that complainant had opted for the site in the Green Nest Project and site No.918 was allotted to the complainant. The opposite parties have also admitted an agreement of sale dated 08/11/1996 was executed in favour of the complainant. The opposite parties have also admitted that the complainant had paid Rs.2,52,000/-. It is the case of the opposite parties that sale deed could not be executed in favour of the complainant since the project is acquired by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Area. They have also admitted that they are not in a position to refund the amount received from the complainant. In view of the admission of the case of the complainant, filing of affidavit evidence has been dispensed with. <br /> 3. Arguments are heard. <br /> 4. The point for consideration is:- <br /> “Whether the opposite parties can be directed to refund the amount with interest and compensation?” <br /> <br /> 5. I have gone through the pleadings of the parties and the documents produced by the complainant. The complainant has produced agreement of sale executed by opposite parties. The complainant has also produced statement of payments made. The complainant has paid in all Rs.2,52,000/- right from 04/09/1996 to 29/03/2005. The complainant has produced copy of legal notice served to the opposite parties. The complainant has produced letter of the opposite parties dated 30/08/2008. This letter has been sent by the Chief Executive Officer of opposite party. By this letter the opposite parties have stated that membership of the site has been cancelled and the deposit amount paid by the complainant will be returned within 120 days from the date of the letter. Therefore, by this letter also the opposite parties have admitted the entire case of the complainant. There is nothing to be decided. The prayer of the complainant for refund of the amount paid by him is quite just and reasonable. The question of allotment of site and execution of sale deed does not arise since the land had been acquired by KIADB. Therefore, the opposite party should be directed to refund Rs.2,52,000/- to the complainant with interest. The Hon’ble National Commission and the Hon’ble State Commission are awarding interest at 18% p.a in the nature of present cases. Therefore, it is just, fair and reasonable to award interest at 18% p.a from the date of last payment till realization. The complainant has prayed Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. In view of escalation of prices of the sites, it would be just, fair and reasonable to award Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant in addition to the refund and interest. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.2,52,000/- to the complainant with interest at 18% p.a on that amount from 29/03/2005 till payment/realization.<br /> 7. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant.<br /> 8. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the present proceedings to the complainant.<br /> 9. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 10. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> Rhr., <br />