IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 491/2010 DATED 03.08.2010<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Naresh Kumar Dhamija, <br /> S/o Duni Chand Dhamija,<br /> R/at No.32, 1st Phase, 2nd Cross, Teachers Colony, Dayanand Sagar College Road, Kumaraswamy Layout, Bangalore-78.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. S.K.Manjunath, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party Nagendra Kumar, Proprietor,<br /> M/s Premier Properties, No.2270, Chittaranjan Mahal, Vinoba Road, Jayalakshmipuram, Mysore.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. N.Govindha, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 11.06.2010<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 28.06.2010<br /> Date of order : 03.08.2010<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTHS 6 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, alleging deficiency in housing service on the part of the opposite party, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and also, refund of the advance amount of Rs.2,80,000/- with 18% interest as well as cost of the proceedings.<br /> <br /> 2. The opposite party in the version has contended that, it is ready to pay back the advance amount with bank interest as the concerned authorities have not yet given sanction.<br /> <br /> 3. In support of his claim, the complainant has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. For the opposite party, one Nagakumar has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. We have heard the arguments and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 4. Now, the point for our consideration is, whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that he is entitled to reliefs sought?<br /> <br /> 5. Our finding is partly in affirmative, for the following reasons.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. The fact that, the opposite party proposed for development of land constructing independent villas in survey No.79 at Marase Village in Varuna Hobli, Mysore Taluk and the complainant paid in all Rs.2,80,000/- out of the estimated cost of Rs.28,00,000/- in the year 2006, is admitted. Also, it is admitted fact that, opposite party had promise to hand over possession of the villas within 24 months. The complainant claims till today, opposite party has not constructed villas and hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Opposite party also admits that, project is not yet completed. Reason assigned is that, concerned authorities have not yet accorded sanction.<br /> <br /> 7. In view of the admitted facts noted above, whatever may be the reason, it is fact that, as promised and assured, opposite party has not constructed the villas and handed over possession thereof to the complainant, within the stipulated period. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.<br /> <br /> 8. The complainant has sought refund of the advance amount. The opposite party is ready and willing to refund the said amount. The complainant has claimed interest at the rate of 18% p.a.. Whereas the opposite party has submitted that, it is ready to pay bank interest. In this regard, learned advocate for the complainant submitted that, if the complainant had invested the said amount, in some other project, he could have got double the amount and further, learned advocate submitted that, now, prices of the site as well as construction cost has been increased substantially and hence, claim of interest at the rate of 18% p.a. is justified. Also, learned advocate submitted that, the advance amount paid by the complainant has been utilized by the opposite party for acquisition of the land etc., Taking into consideration of these aspects as well as the Hon’ble State Commission, Hon’ble National Commission including Hon’ble Apex Court, have awarded interest at the rate of 18% p.a., claim of interest at the rate of 18% p.a. is just and reasonable.<br /> <br /> 9. Now, coming to consider the compensation of Rs.10,000,00/- towards mental agony etc., as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court, interest as well as compensation both cannot be awarded unless special circumstances are made out. Hence, we are of the opinion that, in addition to interest at the rate of 18% p.a, it is not just to further grant compensation to the complainant. <br /> <br /> 10. Considering the facts, evidence and the discussion made here before, we pass the following order:-<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is partly allowed.<br /> 2. The opposite party is hereby directed to refund of Rs.2,80,000/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the respective dates of receipt of the advance noted below, within a month from the date of this order.<br /> Sl.<br /> No. Date Amount<br /> 1. 12th and 17th May 2006 1,00,000/-<br /> 2. 05.06.2006 1,80,000/-<br /> <br /> 3. Further, opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards cost of the proceedings.<br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 3rd August 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br />