Date of Filing:16.11.2007<br /> Date of Order: 24.04.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 24TH DAY OF APRIL 2008<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 /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2278 OF 2007 <br /> <br /> Ashphaque,<br /> S/o Late A.H. Darshanal,<br /> R/at No.31/1, III Floor,<br /> Annai Nilayam,<br /> Anglo Indian Block,<br /> Austin Town,<br /> Bangalore-560047. Complainant<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2279 OF 2007 <br /> <br /> Smt. Ashabee.A,<br /> W/o Late A.H. Darshanal,<br /> S/o Late A.H. Darshanal,<br /> R/at No.31/1, III Floor,<br /> Annai Nilayam,<br /> Anglo Indian Block,<br /> Austin Town,<br /> Bangalore-560047. Complainant<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2280 OF 2007 <br /> <br /> Mushtaque Ahamed,<br /> S/o Late A.H. Darshanal,<br /> R/at No.31/1, III Floor,<br /> Annai Nilayam,<br /> Anglo Indian Block,<br /> Austin Town,<br /> Bangalore-560047. Complainant<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2281 OF 2007 <br /> <br /> <br /> Smt. Sudha.P,<br /> W/o K. Sudhindhra,<br /> R/at No.8, II Cross, S.C. Road, <br /> Opposite to Hotel Pushpamala,<br /> Bangalore-560009. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> M/s Megacity (Bangalore) Developers &<br /> Builders Pvt. Ltd., No.120, <br /> K.H. Road, (Double Road),<br /> Bangalore-560027.<br /> Rep. by its Managing Director,<br /> C.P. Yogeshwara. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President, Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> These four complaints are clubbed together for passing common orders since the facts and law points involved in all these complaints are one and the same and the opposite party in all the three cases is one and the same. These complaints can conveniently be disposed of by common order. The main order will be kept in complaint No.2278/2007 and copy will be kept in other three connected complaints. <br /> The respective complainants have filed U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction to the opposite party to execute the sale deed in respect of the sites allotted to them at Vajragiri Township and also to pay compensation of Rs. 4.5 lakhs for mental tension and agony.<br /> The facts of the case are that, the opposite party is a developer and has agreed to develop lands and offered general public for allotment of sites in the layout to be formed in the aforesaid lands. The complainants became members of the opposite party and are allotted with membership Nos. and agreed to allot and register sites at Vajragiri Township and started paying installments to the opposite party. The opposite party has entered into an agreement with the complainants wherein the opposite party has agreed to develop the land by forming sites and allot sites for a total sale consideration of Rs.48,000/-. The complainants have paid the entire amount. As per the agreement the opposite party has agreed to execute sale deed in respect of the schedule property. The complainants have paid entire sale consideration amount of Rs.48,000/- on different dates. On number of occasions the complainants visited and requested the opposite party to execute and register the sale deed in respect of the schedule property. The complainants have been demanding the opposite party to execute the sale deed. The opposite party has failed to execute and register sale deed in respect of the schedule property even after receipt of entire sale consideration amount from the complainants and it amounts deficiency in service and hence the opposite party is liable to execute and register sale deed in favour of the complainants. It is necessary to direct the opposite party to execute the sale deed.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. Notice served by RPAD. Opposite party put in appearance through advocate and filed defence version stating that, the opposite party is not in a position to execute the sale deed for various reasons. The opposite party applied for conversion of the agricultural land into non-agricultural purposes to form the layout as stated above to the concerned Revenue Department. There were various legal hurdles in forming the layout. The opposite party has made an arrangement to refund the amount paid by the complainant with bank rate of interest. The opposite party is ready and willing to refund the advance amount paid by the complainant with bank rate of interest. The opposite party has filed a suit for specific performance in the Civil Courts against the owners of the land and the suits are pending. So, for all these reasons, the opposite party is not in a position to form the layout and allot the sites in favour of the members. <br /> 3. Affidavit evidence of both the parties filed. Arguments are heard. <br /> 4. In the light of the argument advanced, the following points arise for my consideration. <br /> 1. Whether the opposite party can be directed to <br /> execute the sale deed in respect of the schedule <br /> property?<br /> 2. Whether there was any deficiency in service on <br /> the part of the opposite party?<br /> <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 5. Similar complaints have been disposed of by the District Forum and also by the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Large number of members of the opposite party company have approached the District Forum for the relief and the District Forums are passing orders directing the opposite party company to execute the sale deed in respect of the sites allotted to the particular complainant as per the agreement and possession certificate. It has been further ordered in connected matters that, if the opposite party company fails to form the layout and execute the sale deeds in respect of the sites for legal hurdles in that case, the District Forums and the Hon’ble State Commission ordering refund of the amount by the respective complainants with interest at 18% p.a from the date of respective payments and also the opposite party company has been directed to pay the compensation to the respective complainants for deficiency in service and taken into consideration of escalation of prices of the sites in and around Bangalore. The learned advocate for the complainants in these cases made fervent appeal that the complainants are common persons they had paid the amount with a hope that they may get sites and they had invested their hard earned amount and now a days the prices of the plots increased abnormally and it is not possible for a common man to get the sites at reasonable price in and around Bangalore. Therefore, the learned advocate for the complainants argued that the opposite party company be directed to execute the sale deed as per the agreement and possession certificate. The learned advocate also argued that opposite party company being a very big company and Developer, it should honour the agreement and discharge its obligation and commitment by executing sale deed in favour of the complainants. The learned advocate also brought to our notice that Vajragiri Township is a residential converted layout approved by statutory authorities. So, under these circumstances, there will not be any difficulty on the part of the opposite party to execute the sale deeds in favour of the respective complainants. The learned advocate for the complainant produced a recent judgment of Hon’ble State Commission rendered on 11/12/2007 in Appeal No.1536/2007 between M/s Megacity Developers and Builders V/S Ramachandra.A.R and other connected cases wherein the Hon’ble State Commission directed the Megacity Developers and Builders to execute sale deeds in respect of the sites in favour of the respective complainants within 9 months from the date of this order and it was ordered that in the event if the opposite party fails to form the layout and failed to execute the sale deeds, opposite party is directed to refund the money paid by the complainants with interest at 18% p.a from the date of respective payments till realization and in addition to the above order opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the complainants with interest at 12% p.a from the date of complaint filed before the District Forum till realization. The learned advocate for the complainant submits that, this Forum can also passed orders in accordance with the order and directions made by the Hon’ble State Commission in Appeal No. 1536/2007 dated 11/12/2007. The learned advocate for the opposite party has also fairly and rightly submitted during the course of argument that an order and direction be given to the opposite party to execute the sale deed if the layouts are formed at the Vajragiri Township or in any other village. On failure to execute the sale deed for legal hurdles the opposite party may be directed to refund the amount with interest and compensation. Therefore, in view of the settled position of law and relying on the Hon’ble State Commission judgment referred above, I feel it would be just, fair and proper to direct the opposite party to execute the sale deed in respect of the sites allotted to the respective complainants as per the possession certificate within 9 months from the date of this order. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. All the complaints are allowed. The opposite party company is directed to execute the sale deed in respect of the respective sites allotted to each complainant as per the possession certificate. The complainants have to bear stamp duty and registration charges. In the event of opposite party fails to execute the sale deed for legal hurdles in that case, the opposite party is directed to refund Rs.48,000/- to the respective complainants with interest at 18% p.a from the date of the respective deposits made by them till realization and in addition to the above refund opposite party is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to each of the complainant. All the complainants are entitled to Rs.5,000/- each towards costs of the present proceedings from the opposite party.<br /> <br /> 7. The original of this order shall be kept in complaint No.2278/2007 and a true copy thereof shall be kept in each of the other cases. <br /> 8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 24TH DAY OF APRIL 2008.<br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />