BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 11^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party (herein after referred as OP) with a prayer to direct the OP to refund him a sum of Rs.1,53,000/- together with interest from 12.10.2007 till the date of realization together with damages and litigation cost.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

The complainant is a member of OP society which is engaged in forming layouts and distribution of sites.  The complainant paid a total sum of Rs.5,40,000/- on different dates by way of cheques for purchase of bigger site.  The OP having collected the said amount for bigger site, thereafter, by its letter dated 22.02.2012 allotted a site bearing No.81, measuring 9x12 meters only for the cost of Rs.4,20,000/- and called upon the complainant to pay registration expenses of Rs.72,000/- in cash.  Accordingly, the complainant paid the said amount and the site was registered in the name of complainant on 17.05.2012.  At the time of registration, OP promised to refund the excess money collected by them within few days.  However, OP went on postponing to refund on one or the other pretext and ultimately denied payment of Rs.1,20,000/- received from the complainant on 23.10.2007 under receipt No.3436.

The complainant thereafter got issued a legal notice to the OP calling upon to pay excess amount collected by them.  However, the OP contended that a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- received under receipt No.2408 dated 23.10.2007 is paid by one T.Manjappa and the said amount has been accounted for his account and the complainant is claiming the same amount manipulating and forging the receipt.  OP refused to pay the said amount on false and frivolous grounds and they are also liable to refund excess amount received towards registration of the site.  Therefore, the complainant prays for an order directing the OP to refund the excess amount of Rs.1,53,330/- together with interest from the date of receipt till the date of realization together with damages and costs.

3. In response to the notice issued, OP appeared through their advocate and filed their version admitting that the complainant is one of their member and also admitting receipt of Rs.4,20,000/- except Rs.1,20,000/- under receipt No.2408 dated 23.10.2007 and also admitting receipt of Rs.60,000/- in cash and denying receipt of Rs.72,000/- in cash as claimed by the complainant and further contended as under:

The complainant on different dates has paid a sum of Rs.4,20,000/- by way of cheques towards the sital value and thereafter the complainant has been allotted a site as per allotment letter dated 22.02.2012 bearing No.81 and the same was registered in his favour on 16.05.2012.  The complainant was asked to pay Rs.60,000/- in cash and not Rs.70,000/- towards registration and other expenses.  Out of Rs.60,000/- received from the complainant, a sum of Rs.54,505/- has been spent for registration and other miscellaneous charges and a sum of Rs.5,495/- only is to be refunded to the complainant.  The complainant was transacting with the OP through third party namely Sri.Sanjeev Murthy and one T.Manjappa.  The cheque bearing No.477090 dated 22.09.2007 issued for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- is concerned to one T.Manjappa under receipt No.2408 dated 23.10.2007 and the same has been accounted in favour of T.Manjappa.  Even in the cash ledger the said amount of Rs.1,20,000/- has been accounted in the name of T.Manjappa.  Therefore, the complainant has no right to claim the said amount.  The receipt which has been produced by the complainant regarding the said sum of Rs.1,20,000/- is forged and manipulated and he shall be called upon to produce the original receipt.  The complainant is not entitled to sum of Rs.1,53,000/-.  The complainant has come up with this false and frivolous complaint and he is not entitled to any relief as claimed in the complaint.

For the aforesaid reasons, the OP prays for dismissal of the complaint.  

4. On the rival contention of both the parties, the points that arise for our determination in this case are as under:

5. After the version was filed by the OP, the complainant was called upon to file his affidavit evidence.  Accordingly, he filed his affidavit evidence reiterating the allegations made in the complaint.  The OP filed the affidavit evidence of one Sri.M.Chandrashekaraiah, the Secretary of OP Society to substantiate the averments made in the version.  Both the parties have produced certain documents in support of their respective contentions.  Written submissions have also been submitted by both the parties.

        6. Perused the materials placed on record including allegations made in the complaint, the averments made in the version, the sworn testimony of both the parties, various documents relied upon by the parties, memo of calculations and subsequent payments made etc.

7. Our answer to the above points are as under:

REASONS

8. As already mentioned above the OP admitted the receipt of Rs.4,20,000/- from the complainant towards purchase of site, however, denied the receipt of Rs.1,20,000/- from the complainant under receipt No.2408 dated 23.10.2007.  Though the complainant claimed that he paid Rs.72,000/- towards registration expenses etc., the OP claims that, they have received only Rs.60,000/-.  The OP contends that, out of Rs.60,000/- received, a sum of Rs.54,505/- has been spent towards registration and the complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.5,495/- only.  It is contended by the OP that, a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- under receipt no.2408 dated 23.10.2007 is paid by one T.Manjappa and not by the complainant and the said amount has been accounted in favour of T.Manjappa and the complainant has no right to claim the same.

9. However, during the pendency of the complaint, the learned advocate for the OP handed over three demand drafts totaling to Rs.1,20,000/- to the complainant in the open court along with a cash of Rs.5,500/-.  The complainant reported the receipt of said three demand drafts and also cash of Rs.5,500/- from the advocate for OP.  Thus, the complainant has paid a total sum of Rs.1,25,500/- on 25.07.2014.  It is submitted by the OP that, the said sum of Rs.1,20,000/- though was paid by the complainant the above mentioned T.Manjappa wrongly represented that he is paying the said amount accordingly a receipt was issued in favour of T.Manjappa and the money was remitted to his account.  Later, on enquiry by the OP, it was found that the said amount belongs to the complainant and the action was initiated against T.Manjappa and he was made to pay the said amount in 3 demand drafts and the same were handed over to the complainant on 25.07.2014.  The complainant denied that the said amount of Rs.1,20,000/- was recovered from T.Manjappa, but it has been paid to the OP themselves and they are trying to cover up their lapses and therefore they are liable to pay interest on the said amount and also damages.

10. Admittedly, T.Manjappa did not appear before the Forum and submitted that the said amount of Rs.1,20,000/- was credited to his account.  Moreover, there is no material on record to believe that the said amount of Rs.1,20,000/- was recovered from the said T.Manjappa.  T.Manjappa also did not appear before the Forum on 25.07.2014 to hand over the demand drafts to the complainant.  In fact, the said DDs have been handed over by the counsel for OP to the complainant.  Moreover the OP also admitted that the said amount of Rs.1,20,000/- was paid by the complainant himself but at the insistence of T.Manjappa it was deposited in his account by issuing receipt in favour of T.Manjappa.  This contention of OP is absolutely false in view of the original receipt produced by the complainant which certainly stands in the name of the complainant.  There is no any reason to believe that the said receipt is either false, concocted or tampered.  Thus, it is evident that, the OP illegally retained the said sum of Rs.1,20,000/- from 23.10.2007 till the same was refunded by way of three demand drafts on 25.07.2014.  This act of OP certainly amounts to grave deficiency in service.  Therefore, the OP is liable to pay interest on the said amount from the date of receipt till the date of payment.

11. The conduct of the OP in refusing to refund the said amount of Rs.1,20,000/- to the complainant must have put into hardship, inconvenience and mental agony.  Therefore, the OP has to be directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-.  The complainant claims that, he paid a sum of Rs.72,000/- by way of cash towards registration fee etc.  However, there is no any receipt for the said amount.  OP claims that they received only Rs.60,000/- and after expending Rs.54,505/- they have refunded the balance amount to the complainant on 25.07.2014.

12. In view of the discussions made above, we are of the considered opinion that the OP has to be directed to pay interest @ 18% p.a on Rs.1,20,000/- from 23.10.2007 till 25.07.2014 together with compensation of Rs.10,000/- with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.     

13. The order could not be passed within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency.

14. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

O R D E R

The complaint is allowed in part.  OP society is directed to pay interest @ 18% p.a on Rs.1,20,000/- from 23.10.2007 till 25.07.2014 together with compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency in service and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

The OP shall comply the order passed by this Forum within six weeks from the date of communication.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 11^th day of February 2016)

MEMBER                           MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 06.12.2013.

1. Sri.Swamy Sharan Kumar H.P.

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party dated 20.12.2013.

1. Sri.M.Chandrashekaraiah.

Documents produced by the Opposite Party:

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln*