<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 26.05.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 29th JULY 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1180/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.Mohammed Mahaboob Khan<br /> S/o Rahaman Khan,<br /> 56 years, No.750, 10th Cross,<br /> 16th Main, BTM Layout, II Stage,<br /> Bangalore – 560 070.<br /> <br /> Advocate – Sri.G.V.Dayananda<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Sri.Neelakanteshwaraswamy Weavers House Building Co-op Society Ltd.,<br /> No.72, Service Road, I Phase,<br /> I Stage, West of Chord Road,<br /> Manjunathnagar,<br /> Bangalore – 560010.<br /> <br /> By its Hon-Secretary <br /> Sri.Neelakantachar.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Sri.Neelakanteshwaraswamy Weavers House Building Co-op <br /> Society Ltd.,<br /> No.72, Service Road, I Phase,<br /> I Stage, West of Chord Road,<br /> Manjunathnagar,<br /> Bangalore – 560010.<br /> <br /> By its President,<br /> Sri.Venkataswamy.<br /> <br /> Advocate – Sri.D.K,Sriramappa.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund the sital value of Rs.14,456/- with interest and pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant became the member of the OP house building co-operative society in the year 1985 and then opted for purchasing a site in the layout to be formed by the OP measuring 30’ x 40’. OP accepted the membership of the complainant and provisionally allotted him a site bearing No.764 under letter No.20.02.1989. Towards the total cost of the site complainant paid Rs.14,456/- by the end of August 1989. But still OP failed to complete the said project and failed to register the site in his favour. Complainant made repeated requests and demands right from the year 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. All his efforts have gone in vain. Ultimately complainant came to know that OP is not going to form the layout because of some legal hurdles. That is why he sought for the refund of the site value paid by him along with interest. Even that was not considered by the OP. Ultimately he got issued the legal notice on 14.03.2008, there was no proper response again. For no fault of his he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Thus he felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP what ever the amount they have collected from the members was paid to the Government. Land acquisition officer who acquired the land to the extent of 91 acres at Nagadevanahalli for the formation of the layout. OP has paid Rs.60,00,000/-. But thereafter neither the Government released the land nor refunded the amount. The whole scheme was totally failed in year 1989. In the year 1991 society was superseded and an administrator was appointed. Then the liquidation proceedings took place, some of the interested persons challenged the liquidation in the year 1999. The Appellate court was pleased to allow the said appeal and cancelled the order of liquidation. Then the elected members took charge of the society. Then society filed Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka against the Special Land Acquisition Officer to refund the amount paid by the society with interest. The said Writ Petition was allowed with a direction to return Rs.60,00,000/- with 12% interest. Government challenged the said orders under Writ Appeal No.4131/2002. Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka was pleased to allow the Writ Appeal and reduced the interest to 4%. Thereafter some of the members took refund of their sital value along with the said rate of interest but the complainant didn’t approach the society at any point of time. So there is no negligence, carelessness, much less deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The claim of the complainant for refund of the said amount with 24% interest and compensation of Rs.25,000/- is arbitrary. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant became the member of the OP house building co-operative society in the year 1985 and opted to purchase a site in the layout to be formed by the OP measuring 30’ x 40’. It is also not at dispute that complainant paid in all Rs.14,456/- right up to 18.08.1989. Receipts issued by the OP are produced. Now it is the grievance of the complainant that since 1989 he is repeatedly requesting OP to allot a site and register a site in his favour and put in possession. Though OP provisionally allotted site No.764 on 20.02.1989 but it failed to register the same. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 7. It is further contended by the complainant that he made repeated correspondence, wrote letters to OP in the year 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. Again there was no response. Being fed up with the hostile attitude of the OP, complainant even sought for the refund of the sital value with interest. OP didn’t heed to the request of the complainant. On thorough enquiry complainant came to know that OP has not at all acquired the required quantity of land for the formation of the said layout. Under such circumstances he felt that in a nearest future he is not going to get the site. That is why he got issued the legal notice to OP to refund the sital value with interest and pay compensation. Copy of the legal notice dated 14.03.2008 is produced.<br /> <br /> 8. As against this it is contended by the OP that at their request the land acquisition officer did acquire the land to the extent of 91 acres and the cost of the said land Rs.60,00,000/- is paid by the OP to the Government through the land acquisition officer. This fact is not denied by the complainant. Thereafter it appears unfortunately the said LAO neither released the land nor refunded the amount. Thus the whole scheme totally failed in the year 1989. Not only that in the year 1991 the board was superseded and the administrator was appointed. Society was brought under the liquidation and that liquidation order was challenged in the year 1999. It was upheld by the Appellate court in the year 2000. Complainant being the member of the said society is aware of all these legal hurdles.<br /> <br /> 9. It is further contended by the OP that as the land acquisition officer failed to release the land hence they are unable to complete the project. Thereafter OP sought for return of the money paid. But they could not succeed. That is why OP filed Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.1226/2002. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka was pleased to allow the Writ Petition directing the Government to return the said amount with 12% interest. Government challenged the said order under Writ Appeal No.4131/2002. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka was pleased to allow the said Writ Appeal and reduced the interest to 4%. These facts are also not at dispute. Complainant must be aware of these facts also.<br /> <br /> 10. Having taken note of all these circumstances, we find the hands of the OP society are tied because of the legal hurdle, because of the inaction of the land acquisition officer and the Government. It is not case wherein society retained the said huge amount of Rs.60,00,000/- collected from its members illegally. What ever the amount they have collected they have paid it to the Government through the land acquisition officer to acquire 91 acres of land for the formation of the layout. Unfortunately OP society neither got the land nor the money in time. Under such circumstances the total blame can’t be put on the OP society. <br /> <br /> 11. Of course soon after the disposal of the Writ Petition OP would have refunded the said amount with interest to the remaining members including the complainant, but no such steps are taken. Here we find the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Retention of the said amount from the year 2002 till date appears to be illegal. Having retained the said amount OP accrued the wrongful gain to itself thereby caused wrongful loss to the complainant that too for no fault of his. Complainant invested his hard earned money with a fond hope of acquiring a site but he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment. Under such circumstances naturally complainant must have suffered both mental agony and financial loss. Of course complainant has claimed the refund of the said amount with 24% interest from the year 1989.<br /> <br /> 12. In view of the elaborate discussions made by us in the above said paras with regard to the society being superseded then the society being brought under liquidation in addition to that land acquisition officer having failed to hand over the land or refund the money which forced OP to file a Writ Petition before Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. In our view justice will be met by directing the OP to refund the amount with 16% interest from June 2002 till realization and also pay a nominal compensation and litigation cost. With these reasons we answer point Nos.1 & 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.14,456/- together with interest at the rate of 16% p.a from June 2002 till realization and also pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.<br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 29th day of July 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />