O R D E R

SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:

          These are two different complaints filed by complainants against the same ops with similar grievance and for similar reliefs, as such are taken together for disposal by a common order in order to avoid repetition of facts.  The complaint of first complainant herein after referred to as first complaint and the complaint of the second complainant shall be referred to as second complaint for the sake of convenience.

The first complainant in the complaint has stated that on the offer of Ops of developing a township called European township and residential site offered to sell sites he agreed to purchase a house site bearing No.204 formed in survey number 39, new No.185 of Hirandanahalli, Bidranahalli Hobli measuring 60’ X 40’ for total sale consideration of Rs.29.00 lakhs.   That as advance payment paid Rs.10,85,000/- to the Ops by paying cash of Rs.25,000/- on 23/08/2008 on the same day another cheque for Rs.1,75,000/- and one more cheque for Rs.8,85,000/- on 29/08/2008 respectively.     The Ops have executed an agreement of sale in respect of this transaction promising to deliver possession of the site within 9 months from the date of agreement dated 29/08/2008.  Ops were required to furnish the documents and approval by the authority within 3 months from the date of agreement but failed to furnish such documents and they did not show any progress in formation of township.   That he despite approaching Ops several times, Ops have not shown any progress and thereby have failed to keep up their promise.  Thus has prayed for a direction to them to refund Rs.10,85,000/- paid by him with interest @ 12% p.a and also to pay compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh with cost.

3. The grievance of the second complainant is also such that Ops had offered to provide him a site in the same township of the same place and they booked plot No.431 measuring 30’ X 40’ and had paid an advance payment of Rs.2.00 lakhs through a cheque as he had opted out of gift which was the scheme providing him for reduction of Rs.2.00 lakhs per site that was offered to him.  It is also contended by this complainant that thereafter, on demand by the Ops he paid another Rs.1,67,500/- through a cheque dated 06/09/2008 and the Ops had promised by executing an agreement of sale on 06/09/2008 that they will get the approval for formation of layout within three months.   Thereafter, despite approaching the Ops several times, the Ops did not show any progress of either obtaining approval or in formation of township.   He after waiting for more than six months do not find any improvement and therefore, demanded for refund of money.  Thereafter towards refund of his money, he collected 6 post dated cheques but all of them on presentation were bounced.   That Op No.4 acted for Op No.1 to 3 issued advertisement calling for applications and issued the bounced cheques, therefore stating that all the Ops have caused deficiency in their service and indulged in unfair trade practice and therefore has prayed for a direction to Ops 1 to 3 to refund Rs.3,67,500/- with interest @ 12% p.a and to direct Op No.4 to pay him compensation of Rs.3.00 lakhs and to award cost.

4. Notice sent to Ops in the first complaint against Op No.1 was returned with a postal shara as ‘not claimed’, notice of Op No.2 was returned with a shara as ‘information delivered’.  Notices to said Ops deemed to have been served, they were called out, remained absent are set ex-parte.    Whereas in second complaint, notice sent to Ops No.2 and 3 are returned with a postal shara as ‘not claimed’.   Therefore, service was held as sufficient.   Those Ops were called out, remained absent are set ex-parte.   Notice of Op No.1 and 4 were returned with shara as ‘left’,   Thereafter, complainant since did not take steps against Ops 1 and 4.   Complaint against those Ops is dismissed for default.    Then both the complaints were posted for complainant’s affidavit.   The complainants have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint.   The complainants along with the complaints have filed the original agreement of sale, General Power of Attorney, Bank statement evidencing honouring of cheques issued in favour of Ops towards partial sale consideration with copies of legal notice.   We have heard the counsel for first complainant and second complainant who is in person and perused the records.

5. On consideration of the complainants allegations, affidavit evidence filed by both parties and the documents, it is found that in pursuance of the publication made by the Ops, in forming a township called European Township, the complainants applied for allotment of plots.   The first Op represented by its Managing Director namely Mr. Ashfak Ahmed entered into separate agreements of sale dated 29/08/2008 and 06/09/2008 respectively with complainants received a total sum of Rs.10,85,000/- towards part of sale consideration agreeing to sell a site bearing No.204 measuring 60’ X 40’ in favour of first complainant and  Similarly, the same Managing Director of the first Op executed an agreement of sale in favour of second complainant and on the date of agreement, received a partial consideration of Rs.3,67,500/- agreeing to sell site number 431 in favour of the second complainant.   The complainants have also produced account extract of their SB account to prove that the cheques issued in favour of first Op have been honoured and cheque amounts are paid to the Managing Director of first Op.   The further evidence of these complainants, that the Ops thereafter failed to keep up their promise of developing township and to deliver certain documents, and even after approach the Ops did not account for the lapse and delay then they demanded for refund of money but they did not respond positively.  The second complainant has even stated when he persuaded the Ops to refund his money, the 4^th Op had even issued 6 post dated cheques for refund of his money which were on presentation bounced.   The evidence of the complainant that 4^th Op in the second complaint had participated in the transaction in question had issued chques for refund of money, on behalf of Op No.1 has not been controverted.

6. On consideration of all these materials, they un-hearingly prove that both these complainants believing the Ops spared their monies with an intention to purchase plots but the Ops who entered into agreements of sale and acknowledged the part payment, thereafter have failed to act in accordance with the terms of the agreement of sale.   The Ops found to have not even responded to the legal notice that the complainants got issued and have not even responded to the notice issued by this forum.  Hence, we find no reason to discard the claim of the complainants.   The Ops proved to have caused deficiency in their service in not allotting sites to the complainants or to refund money.    Therefore, we hold that the complaints deserve to be allowed and pass the following order.

O R  D  E  R

          Complaints are allowed.

          Op No. 1 and 2 in the first complaint are jointly and severally held as deficient in their service and therefore are directed to refund Rs.10,85,000/-to the complainant with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of respective payments until that amount is refunded.   The Ops shall refund the above amount with interest within 60 days from the date of this order.

          Ops shall also pay cost of Rs.5,000/- to the first complainant.

          Ops 1 to 4 in the second complaint are jointly and severally held as deficient in their service and therefore hereby directed to refund Rs.3,67,600/- to the complainant with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of respective payment until those amounts is refunded.   The Ops shall refund the above amount with interest within 60 days from the date of this order.

          Ops shall also pay cost of Rs.3,000/- to the second complainant.

          The original order shall be kept in complaint No:1736/2010 and the copy of the same shall be kept in the remaining complaint.

          Dictated to the Stenographer.  Got it transcribed and corrected.  Pronounced in the Open forum on this the 19^th November 2010.

MEMBER                             PRESIDENT