06.09.2023:

COMMON ORDER

IN REVIEW APPLICATION NOs.76 to 78 OF 2023

BY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH, PRESIDENT

01.   These review applications were filed by the opposite parties under section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 seeking review of the orders dated: 15.06.2023 passed by this Commission in Appeal Nos. 1981/2022, 1982/2022, 1983/2022.  This commission had dismissed the said Appeals on the ground that, the opposite parties have issued provisional allotment letter dated: 27.05.2013 to the complainants, but have not formed any layout and not allotted the sites in favour of the complainants, further the opposite parties have utilized the hard earned money of complainants for its project and dragging the matter to repay the amount paid by the complainants on one or the other reason which amounts to deficiency in service. 

02.   Heard the counsel for RA - Petitioners and Respondent in-person in all the three cases.

03.   The facts of the case is that, the complainants have filed consumer complaint Nos.547/2021, 548/2021, 549/2021 before the Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, seeking directions to allot the sites from the opposite parties in their favour.  The District Commission by its order dated: 27.07.2022 had allowed the said consumer complaints in part and directed the opposite parties to refund the principal amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.  Aggrieved by the said orders, opposite parties have preferred Appeal Nos. 1981/2022, 1982/2022, 1983/2022 before this commission and this Commission had dismissed the said Appeals on 15.06.2023 by confirming the orders of the District Commission and feeling aggrieved  the opposite parties have preferred these Review Applications.    

04.   The learned counsel for opposite parties had argued that, they have formed an approved layout in Kenchanapura Village, Kengeri Hobli, in the name of Hoysala Judicial Layout and they are ready to allot sites in favour of complainant.  But the complainants have submitted that, due to their old age and as there was no proper development such as electricity, water, road, etc., they refuse to avail the sites in the said layout.  Furthermore counsel for opposite parties had submitted that, they are ready to repay the principal amount to the complainants in all the above three cases after selling the sites to any third parties and sought for reduction of interest rate awarded by the District Commission as it may burden the financial crises of the opposite parties.

05.   In the above circumstances, we are of the considered view that, the orders dated: 27.07.2022 in C.C. Nos. Nos.547/2021, 548/2021, 549/2021 passed by the District Commission and the orders dated: 15.06.2023 passed by this Commission in Appeal Nos. 1981/2022, 1982/2022, 1983/2022 require to be   modify and  the opposite parties are   directed to repay the principal amount to the complainants, in all the above three cases along with interest at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of respective payments made by the complainants till realization along with litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- each.

06.   The complainants submitted that, they had already received the statutory deposit amounts which was  deposited by the opposite parties at the time of filing of these three Appeals has to be adjusted and directed the opposite parties to pay the balance amount within 03 months from this day. It is hereby observed that this modified order is made considering the peculiar circumstances which we found from the parties to these appeals binds parties to these cases and not to be treated as precedent.  Accordingly the Review applications are disposed-off.

LADY MEMBER           JUDICIAL MEMBER              PRESIDENT

Knmp*