O R D E R

SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:

          The grievance of the complainant against the opposite party [herein after called as OP] in brief is, that he is a member of the OP society applied for an allotment of site measuring 40ft X 60ft and deposited in all Rs.25,500/- with the OP on 21/03/1988 towards cost of the sites.  But thereafter even after payment of full cost of the site and promising to allot a site in Chanakyapuri layout, OP failed to make final allotment. Despite several approaches and demands, OP has failed to make final allotment of a site in his favour. The OP went on assuring to provide a site though has collected entire sital value. But when they failed to provide a site, she sent a legal notice to him on 30/09/2010 but stated that OP has not paid the money. Thereby has prayed for a direction to the OP to refund Rs.25,000/- with interest at 18% per annum.

          2. OP has appeared through his advocate and filed version, without denying that the complainant is a member of the society and also not denied receipt of total consideration of Rs.25,500/-. OP referring to the acquisition of certain lands and preliminary notification was issued on 4-8-1986 has stated acquisition was quashed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.15625/1987, on challenging the acquisition then matter was taken to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in special leave petition No.13339/1991 which was dismissed with a direction to hand over possession of the acquired lands to the respective land owners. That their money paid to the LAO was held up and referring to writ petition filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka for a direction to refund the deposited money and subsequent writ petition filed to get back money from the LAO and has also referred to the order of the Hon’ble high Court for refund of money and consequent contempt proceeding for having not refunded the deposited money. Further stated because of the order of quashing the acquisition of land, they have not been able to get the land or the money paid by them. It is further stated having regard to these facts they are not liable to pay interest on the complainant’s money and therefore, denying any deficiency at their end has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

          3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and OP have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant along with the complaint has produced copies of receipts for having made payment to the OP and copy of legal notice he got issued to the OP demanding refund of money. OP has produced copies of acquisition proceedings, judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, copy of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and a decision of the Hon’ble High Court. Counsel for the complainant has filed written arguments. We have heard the counsel for OP and perused the records.

          4. On the above contentions following points for determination arise.

1.       Whether the complainant proves that the OP has caused deficiency in his service in not refunding the money paid by him?

2.       To what reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?

          5. Our findings are as under:

                   Point No.1: In the affirmative

                   Point No.2: See the final order

REASONS:

          6. Answer on point no.1: On perusal of the rival contentions, we do not find much dispute between the parties, we regard to this complainant having had became a member of OP society seeking allotment of a site. The complainant has produced documents to proves that he in all had paid Rs.25,000/- on different dates towards cost of sites. OP though has not denied the documents filed by the complainant in proof, the total amount paid by the complainant. Hence, the complainant could be conveniently be said to had paid a total sum of Rs.55,000/-towards the cost of site.

          7. OP without disputing the purpose for which the amount was paid by the complainant and also admitting that they have not allotted site to the complainant, contended that the lands acquired on their behalf for formation of layout was quashed by the High Court and the order was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and they have delivered back possession of the lands to the respective land lords. The complainant is not denying the litigations that crop up and this OP losing the lands. OP has also referred to a decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashing acquisition. We also find the order of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No.26916/1997 and other connected matter wherein direction was given to land acquisition officer to refund the OP’s money. But as contended by the OP and his counsel, it appears that the OP has not been able to get back his entire money he has paid to the land acquisition officer as consideration for acquisition of land. The learned counsel for the OP even during arguments submitted that even till date, they have not been able to get back their money from the land acquisition officer and therefore, they were not able to refund the complainant’s money. This submission of the counsel for the OP has not been controverted by counsel for the complainant. Therefore, it is manifest from this fact that objective of the OP to provide site to its members was defeated by quashing acquisition proceedings. It is also undisputedly established that compensation they had deposited with the land acquisition officer has not been fully repaid to them. Therefore under these circumstances as held by the Hon’ble High Court in a decision reported in AIR SC 2010 page 486, the OP cannot be burdened with payment of interest on the amount paid. Further, the contention of the OP that claim of the complainant is barred by limitation cannot be accepted, because as admitted by the OP himself the issue of providing site or refund of money has been under litigation since several years and it is not ended even as on today. Therefore the complainant who was and has been touch with the OP for one or the other reliefs has been made to wait, that being so, the OP cannot take the defence of limitation to deny the complainant’s money.

          8. The complainant it is found except through a letter dated 30/09/2010 had not demanded refund of his money at any time earlier.  Therefore the complainant, in our view is entitled for interest on the money paid by him from the date such demand till the date of payment. With this we hold that the complaint deserves to be allowed and accordingly we answer point no.1 in the affirmative and pass the following order.

O R D E R

          Complaint is allowed. OP is directed to refund Rs.25,500/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Five Hundred only) with interest @ 15% per annum from 30/09/2010 till the date of payment and OP shall refund that money with interest within 60 days from the date of this order.

          OP shall also pay cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant.