Date of Filing:13.10.2008<br /> Date of Order:01.12.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 01ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2218 OF 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> Amita K. Shah<br /> W/o. K.M. Shah<br /> R/at No. 22, 1st Floor, Lakshmi Nilaya<br /> Yamunabai Road, Madhavanagar<br /> Bangalore 01 Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> 1. M. Manohar Reddy<br /> Proprietor<br /> City Square Enterprises (P) Ltd. and<br /> Managing Director of Happy Farms<br /> and Resorts Pvt. Ltd.<br /> # 312, 3rd Floor, Royal Corner<br /> K.H. Road, Bangalore 560 027<br /> <br /> 2. Balaramareddy<br /> Proprietor, Pinnacle Softek India Ltd.<br /> and Director of Happy Farms and Resorts<br /> Pvt. Ltd., No. 44/45, 2nd Floor, Vinayaka<br /> Complex, Residency Cross Road<br /> Bangalore 560 025 Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. <br /> The facts of the case are that complainant became member of ‘Little England’ scheme of Happy Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. of opposite parties by depositing Rs. 20,000/- as initial deposit and entered into an agreement of sale on 18.05.1995 for allotting farm land bearing No. 060 measuring ½ acre in favour of complainant. Complainant paid Rs. 1,08,000/- in 36 monthly installments of Rs. 3,000/- and opposite parties have issued pass book and receipts for the amount received. Opposite parties failed to develop the farms as per the terms laid down. Complainant contacted the opposite parties several times and requested to execute sale deed. The opposite parties by assigning one or the other reason have postponing to execute the sale deed. Complainant issued legal notice to opposite parties dated 13.08.2008 calling upon to execute the sale deed or to pay the present market value of the site. The act of opposite parties in not executing sale deed amounts to deficiency of service. Complainant prayed to direct the opposite parties to execute the sale deed and pay compensation.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite parties through RPAD. Notice issued on opposite party No. 2 returned with an endorsement ‘Left’. Opposite party No.1 even though served with notice has not appeared before this forum and defence version not filed by post also. Therefore, the opposite party No. 1 placed as ex-parte. <br /> 3. Perused the complaint and documents. Heard the arguments of learned advocate for the complainant.<br /> 4. The complainant has produced agreement of sale executed by the opposite parties. Complainant has produced several receipts to show that he has paid in all Rs. 1,28,000/- out of that Rs. 20,000/- as initial payment and complainant has paid Rs. 3,000/- for 36 months. To show these payments he has produced passbook extract and also the receipts issued by opposite parties. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite parties have not allotted and given ½ acre of land as per the agreement and the opposite parties have failed in its commitment in not allotting the plot in favour of the complainant. The opposite parties have also failed to execute the sale deed as agreed. The act of not executing the sale deed amounts to a clear case of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant got issued legal notice requesting opposite parties to execute sale deed. Inspite of legal notice opposite parties have not taken any steps in allotting the plot as per the agreement. The complainant has prayed to direct the opposite parties to execute sale deed in respect of ½ acre of land in “Little England” layout. The request of the complainant in respect of registration of sale deed will not be possible because it is not clear that opposite parties have formed the layout or not and also not clear that necessary permissions for forming layout has been taken or not. It is also not clear that layout has been developed or not. So under these circumstances it is not proper to direct the opposite parties to execute sale deed of a plot in favour of complainant. However, the complainant is entitled for the refund of the amount paid by him. That will serve the purpose. The complainant is also entitled for the interest on the amount paid by him from the opposite party because the opposite parties have enjoyed the amount for so many years and in turn the opposite party has not executed sale deed as per the commitment. Therefore, the complainant is definitely entitled for the interest on the amount. The Hon’ble National Commission and State Commission are awarding 18% interest p.a. in the similar cases. Therefore, in this case also I feel it is just, proper and reasonable to award 18% interest p.a. on the amount paid by complainant. The opposite parties have not appeared and contested the matter though served with notice. It appears that opposite parties have no defence to make. Therefore, he remained absent. Taking into consideration all the facts and documents I am of the opinion that complaint is liable to be allowed. In the result I proceed to pass the following: <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 5. The Complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 1,28,000/- to the complainant along with 18% interest p.a. from the date of last payment i.e. 14.03.1998 till payment / realization.<br /> 6. The complainant is also entitled for Rs. 10,000/- as costs of the present proceedings from the opposite parties.<br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 01ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2008. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br />