Date of Filing:26.12.2008<br /> Date of Order:18.06.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> Dated: 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2009<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> SRI S.S. NAGARALE, PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER <br /> SRI A.MUNIYAPPA, MEMBER<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2819 OF 2008<br /> R.N. Ananth Prasad<br /> S/o. R.N. Nagaraja Guptha<br /> R.N. Nagaraja Guptha and Sons<br /> Fertilizers and General Merchants<br /> RSS Road, Near Bus Stand<br /> Tymagondlu 562 132 Complainant<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2820 OF 2008<br /> R.N. Krishna Murthy<br /> S/o. Late R.C. Nanjunda Shetty<br /> M/s. Sree Kaneswara Traders<br /> Devaraj Circle, College Road<br /> Tymagondlu 562 132 Complainant<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2821 OF 2008<br /> R.N. Mohan Kumar<br /> S/o. Late R.C. Nanjunda Shetty<br /> Swamy Traders, Devaraj Circle<br /> Near Bus Stand<br /> Tymagondlu 562 132 Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> 1. M/s. Omkar Estates Pvt. Ltd.<br /> No. 10, 80 feet Road<br /> Bank Colony Main Road<br /> Shrinivas Nagar, BSK II Stage<br /> Near Bata Show Room<br /> Bangalore 560 050<br /> Rep. by its Managing Director<br /> <br /> 2. Talam V Nagaraj<br /> Managing Director<br /> No. 43/1, 1st Floor<br /> Kanakapura Road<br /> Basavanagudi<br /> Bangalore 560 004<br /> <br /> 3. K.R. Suresh Kumar<br /> Joint Managing Director<br /> Residing at Shreyas, No. 43<br /> New No. 4/22, Old Puttanna Road<br /> Basavanagudi, Bangalore Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> These three complaints are clubbed together for passing common order since the opposite parties in all the three complaints are one and the same. The facts are also one and the same. Therefore, these three complaints could be conveniently disposed by passing common order.<br /> The complainants entered into an agreement with opposite parties for purchase of site and complainant Ananth Prasad had paid in all Rs. 64,500/- by way of installments from time to time and complainant Krishna Murthy has paid in all Rs. 66,000/- by way of installments and Mohan Kumar has paid in all Rs. 64,500/- by way of installments. The opposite parties have not completed the layout and failed to execute sale deed and hand over possession. There was in action on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, there was deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. The complainants have prayed for refund of amount paid by them with interest in case the opposite parties failed to register the sites in their favour. <br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite parties. Opposite parties appeared through advocate and filed their defence version. The opposite parties have admitted that there was an agreement entered into between the parties and they have also admitted that the complainants have paid amount by way of installment from time to time. The defence of the opposite parties is that the complainants have not paid the entire sital value therefore sale deed could not be executed in their favour and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 3. Affidavits are filed by both the parties. <br /> 4. Arguments are heard.<br /> 5. The point for consideration is:<br /> “Whether the opposite parties could be directed to refund the amount with interest?”<br /> 6. I have gone through the pleadings. The respective complainants have produced receipts issued by the opposite parties. As per the receipts complainant Ananth Prasad and Mohan Kumar have paid Rs. 64,500/- on various dates to the opposite parties. The complainant Krishna Murthy has paid Rs. 66,000/- by way of installments on various dates. As regards payment made by the respective complainants there is no dispute. Since the sites have not been allotted and possession of the sites was not delivered to the complainants the opposite parties have not formed the layout. No documents have been produced to show that layout has been formed and ready for allotment. So under these circumstances the only relief that could be granted to the complainants is refund of the amount paid by them. If the opposite parties are directed to refund the amount received by them no injustice or prejudice will cause to them. The opposite parties having been utilised the amount received from the complainants they are bound to pay the interest on the amount. Under the facts and circumstances of the case grant of 9% interest p.a. on the refund amount would be just, fair and reasonable. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 7. All the three complaints are allowed. The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 64,500/- to the complainant R.N. Ananth Prasad in complaint No. 2819/2008 along with 9% interest p.a. on that amount from 19.02.2000 (Last date of payment) till payment / realisation.<br /> 8. The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 66,000/- to the complainant R.N. Krishna Murthy in complaint No. 2820/2008 along with 9% interest p.a. on that amount from 19.08.2000 (Last date of payment) till payment / realisation.<br /> 9. The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 64,500/- to the complainant R.N. Mohan Kumar in complaint No. 2821/2008 along with 9% interest p.a. from 16.02.2000 (last date of payment) till payment / realisation.<br /> 10. The respective complainants are entitled for Rs. 2,000/- as costs of the present proceedings from the opposite parties.<br /> 11. Keep the copy of the order in connected case files. <br /> 12. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 13. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT I/c.<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br /> <br />