COMPLAINT FILED: 30-07-2009
DISPOSED ON: 13-06-2010
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
13TH JUNE 2010
PRESENT :- SRI. B.S.REDDY PRESIDENT
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER
SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.1817/2009 & 1818/2009
COMPLAINT nO. 1817/09 Complainant | Sri.N. Giridhar, S/o H.N.Nagaraju, Aged about 25 years, Residing at No.334/A. 9th Cross, 1st Stage, 6th Phase, West of Chord Road, Rajajinagar Industrial Town Post, Bangalore – 560 044. |
COMPLAINT nO. 1818/09 Complainant | Sri H.N.Nagaraju, S/o Nagendrappa, Aged about 58 years, Residing at No.334/A. 9th Cross, 1st Stage, 6th Phase, West of Chord Road, Rajajinagar Industrial Town Post, Bangalore – 560 044. V/s. |
OPPOSITE PARTIES | 1) Vishwabharathi House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd., Office at No.891, Anugraha, 2nd Main Road, 4th Cross, Manjunath Temple Road, Mysore Bank Colony, Bangalore – 85. K. Jayaram, President of V.H.B.C.S. 2) Sri. Manjunath, Secretary, Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., Girinagar, Bangalore – 560 020. |
| 3) The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, Sankey Road, Bangalore – 560 020. |
O R D E R
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER
These are the complaints filed by the respective Complainants u/s. 12 of the C.P.Act of 1986 by the Complainants seeking direction to Opposite Party No.1 & 2 (herein after called as OP) to ear mark the site and to put the Complainants possession of the site part the bearing site No.1076/13/5, measuring 30 X 50 fts, in phase No.IV, of Vishwabharathi House building Co-operative Society Ltd., Layout, Bangalore or any other alternative site in the layout where the approval accorded by the 3rd Respondent or to pass any other orders on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps.
2. As the O.P. in both the complaints are common, the question involved, relief claimed being the same, in order to avoid repetition of facts and multiplicity of reasoning these cases stand disposed of by this common order.
3. The brief averments as could be seen from the contents of these complaints are as under:
Complainants being attracted by the offer made by O.P. who claims to be the House building Co-operative society engaged in formation of residential sites of various dimensions in and around Bangalore thought of becoming the members of the O.P. Society. Each Complainant was allotted a site by O.P. vide allotment No.1076/1315 measuring 30 X 50 fts. in phase IV of Vishwabharathi House building Co-op. Society Ltd., layout. Complainants paid Rs.6,75,000/- each to O.P. The O.P. executed the Registered sale deed, in favour of the each Complainant dated: 4-5-2006 registered in the office of sub-registrar Kengeri as document No.P-4768 dt:4-5-2006. Complainants requested O.P. to ear mark the site as per the Registered sale deed and put the complainant in possession. O.P. replied that they are waiting for the Government order. After the Government order dated: 4-10-2007, Complainants again approached O.P. Inspite of repeated requests O.P. failed to deliver possession of the site to the complainant and has complained to O.P.3 B.D.A., regarding the acts of O.P.1 and 2. O.P.3 also failed to take any action against O.P. 1 and 2. For no fault of than complainants were made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Hence complainants felt deficiency in service against the O.Ps. Under these circumstances they are advised to file these complaints and sought for the releifs accordingly. For the convenience sake, site no. measurement of site, amount paid, date and No. of receipts, date of sale deed etc., are noted below in the chart.
Sl. No. | C.C.No. | Site No. | Measure ment of site | Date of Sale deed | Date of & No. of receipts | Amount paid |
1 | 1817/09 | 1076/13/5 | 30 X 50 fts | 4/5/06 | 31/3/2006 3413 31/3/2006 3414 31/3/2006 23243 | 4,00,000-00 2,25,000-00 50,000-00 6,75,000-00 |
2 | 1818/09 | 1076/13/5 | 30 X 50 fts. | 4/5/06 | 4/10/04 1663 31/3/06 3416 31/3/06 3415 11/11/05 23165 | 5,000-00 2,25,000-00 1,50,000-00 2,95,000-00 6,75,000-00 |
O.P.1 entered appearance through advocate filed memo along with, notice and order of joint registrar of co-op. societies stating presently he is not a director of the O.P.1. Hence Complainant filed application to amend the cause title. Application allowed. Cause title amended. Name of the President Mr.Krishna Bhatt deleted and Mr. name of Mr. K.G.Narasimha Swamy, Secretary was brought on record. Fresh notice was sent to O.P.1. Mr. K.G.Narasimha Swamy. Inspite of service of notices O.P.1 & 2 remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. Hence O.P.1 & 2 is placed exparte. On appearance O.P.3 filed the version. The defence set out by O.P.3 in both the complaints are identical and same. It is mainly contended that there is no relief claimed against O.P.3. The complaints are barred by limitation. Complaints averments are not within the knowledge of O.P.3; O.P.3 has not approved the layout plan and complaints suffers from non issuance of statutory notice as requested under the act; There is no privity of contract between complainant and O.P.3 or O.P.1 & 2 between O.P.3; O.P.3 never allotted any site to the members of the society and never executed any sale deed infavour complainants or O.P.1 & 2. Complainants are not its member or allotte under O.P.3. Among other grounds prayed for dismissal the complaint.
4. To substantiate the complaint averments each complainant filed their affidavit evidence and produced respective certified copy of the sale deeds, receipts, intimation of site allotment, (memo) possession certificate, No due certificate, No objection certificate, copy of the police complaint. O.P.1 & 2 did not participate proceedings. On behalf of O.P.3 Sri BASAPPA, Deputy Secretary, filed his affidavit in support of the defence version, and not produced any documents. Complainant filed written arguments. Heard arguments from complainant and O.P.3.
5. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in these complaints are as under:
Point No.1: Whether the complainants have
proved the deficiency in service
on the part of the OP No.3 ?
Point No.2 :If so, whether the complainants are
entitled for the reliefs now claimed?
Point No.3 : To what Order ?
6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:
Point No.1 :- In negative.
Point No.2 :- In negative against O.P.3
In Affirmative against O.P.1 & 2.
Point No.3 :- As per final order.
R E A S O N S
7. At the out set it is not in dispute that these complainants being lured away with the advertisement and propaganda issued by the O.P., become the member of the O.P. house building co-op. society and opted to purchase a site measuring 30 X 50 fts. In phase IV of the O.P. layout at Girinagar, Bangalore. O.P. accepted the membership of the each complainant, allotted and registered site bearing No.1076/13/6 and collected sale consideration of Rs.6,75,000/- from each complainant. The copy of the registered sale deed and receipts issued by O.P. are produced in each case. It is the grievance of the complainants that though they waited for more than 5 years and made repeated requests and demands to O.P. to ear mark the site and put the complainants in possession. It went in vain. Complainants approached O.P.3 and complained about the illegal acts of O.P.1 & 2. O.P.3 failed to take any action against O.P.1 & 2, safe guarding interest of the complainants. Complainants lodged the complaint with Girinagar police. Copy of the police complainant is produced. On repeated requests O.P. failed to ear mark the site and put the complainants in possession. Hence complainants approached this Forum.
8. As against the case of the Complainants it is contended by the O.P.3 that there is no issuance of statutory notice to O.P.3 and these is no privity of contract between the complainant and O.P.3 or O.P.1 and 2 and O.P.3. O.P.3 never allotted any sites to the members of the society. O.P.3 has not approved the layout plan. Complainant never executed any sale deed infavour of the complainant or O.P.1 and 2. Complainant is not a member or a consumer under O.P.3. There is some force in the say of the O.P.3. These contentions of O.P.3 are not denied by the complainant. Since no relief is claimed against O.P.3. The complaints are stand dismissed against O.P.3.
9. On admission and registration of the complainant notices were sent to O.P.1 and 2. Though O.P.1 and 2 are duly served with the notice remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. Hence 1 and 2 are placed exparte.
10. From absence of O.P.1 and 2 we can draw the inference that O.P.1 and 2 admits all the allegations made by the each of the complainants in toto. The unchallenged affidavit evidence and documents produced corroborates the case of the complainant. There is nothing to disbelieve the sworn statement of the complainant. Though the complainant invested their hard earned money they are unable to reap the traits of their investment. O.P. having accepted the sale consideration of Rs.6,75,000/- in each case, executed the registered sale deeds showing same site in both the sale deeds no. infavour of the each complainant and failed to ear mark the site and put the complainants in possession since five years. This act of O.P. amounts to deficiency in service. It appearance there is no existence of site. Hence the relief of possession cannot be granted. Complainants can approval the Civil Court for the redressal. There is no proof that O.P. had even formed the layout as promised without there being any sites. O.P. has issued no objection to contruct building and no due certificate to the complainants. We have perused the order of the joint registrar of co-op societies.
11. Complainant has sought for to ear mark the site and to put the complainant in possession of the site or registration of any alternative site. Complainants have failed to produce any documents to show that whether any such layout has been formed duly approved by the statutory authorities and sites are freely available free from encumbrances as on today. From the documents produced it appears same site has been sold to each complainants. Hence the reliefs sought cannot be granted. Under the circumstances of the case we are of the considered view that each complainant is entitle for the relief of refund of amount paid along with compensation Rs. 1 lakh and interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and cost of Rs.1000/- . Accordingly we proceed to pass the following order.
O R D E R
1) The complaints are allowed in part.
2) In C.C.No.1817/2009 O.P.1 and 2 are directed to allot & register any alternative site in the same layout at the same cost and register at the cost of the O.P. If not possible for any reason to do refund Rs.6,75,000/- together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of respective payments till the date of realisation & to pay compensation to of Rs.1 lakh and pay litigation cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant.
3) In C.C.No.1818/2009 O.P.1 and 2 are directed to allot & register any alternative site in the same layout at the same cost and register at the cost of the O.P. If not possible for any reason to refund Rs.6,75,000/- together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date
of respective payments till the date of realisation & to pay compensation of Rs.1 lakh and pay litigation cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant.
4) Complaint against O.P.3 is dismissed. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of communication of this order.
The original order shall be kept in the file of Complaint No.1817/2009 and copy is it shall be Placed in other respective file.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 13th day of June – 2011.)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
RK:
COMPLAINT FILED: 30-07-2009
DISPOSED ON: 13-06-2010
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
13TH JUNE 2010
PRESENT :- SRI. B.S.REDDY PRESIDENT
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER
SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.1817/2009 & 1818/2009
COMPLAINT nO. 1817/09 Complainant | Sri.N. Giridhar, S/o H.N.Nagaraju, Aged about 25 years, Residing at No.334/A. 9th Cross, 1st Stage, 6th Phase, West of Chord Road, Rajajinagar Industrial Town Post, Bangalore – 560 044. |
COMPLAINT nO. 1818/09 Complainant | Sri H.N.Nagaraju, S/o Nagendrappa, Aged about 58 years, Residing at No.334/A. 9th Cross, 1st Stage, 6th Phase, West of Chord Road, Rajajinagar Industrial Town Post, Bangalore – 560 044. V/s. |
OPPOSITE PARTIES | 1) Vishwabharathi House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd., Office at No.891, Anugraha, 2nd Main Road, 4th Cross, Manjunath Temple Road, Mysore Bank Colony, Bangalore – 85. K. Jayaram, President of V.H.B.C.S. 2) Sri. Manjunath, Secretary, Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., Girinagar, Bangalore – 560 020. |
| 3) The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, Sankey Road, Bangalore – 560 020. |
O R D E R
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER
These are the complaints filed by the respective Complainants u/s. 12 of the C.P.Act of 1986 by the Complainants seeking direction to Opposite Party No.1 & 2 (herein after called as OP) to ear mark the site and to put the Complainants possession of the site part the bearing site No.1076/13/5, measuring 30 X 50 fts, in phase No.IV, of Vishwabharathi House building Co-operative Society Ltd., Layout, Bangalore or any other alternative site in the layout where the approval accorded by the 3rd Respondent or to pass any other orders on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps.
2. As the O.P. in both the complaints are common, the question involved, relief claimed being the same, in order to avoid repetition of facts and multiplicity of reasoning these cases stand disposed of by this common order.
3. The brief averments as could be seen from the contents of these complaints are as under:
Complainants being attracted by the offer made by O.P. who claims to be the House building Co-operative society engaged in formation of residential sites of various dimensions in and around Bangalore thought of becoming the members of the O.P. Society. Each Complainant was allotted a site by O.P. vide allotment No.1076/1315 measuring 30 X 50 fts. in phase IV of Vishwabharathi House building Co-op. Society Ltd., layout. Complainants paid Rs.6,75,000/- each to O.P. The O.P. executed the Registered sale deed, in favour of the each Complainant dated: 4-5-2006 registered in the office of sub-registrar Kengeri as document No.P-4768 dt:4-5-2006. Complainants requested O.P. to ear mark the site as per the Registered sale deed and put the complainant in possession. O.P. replied that they are waiting for the Government order. After the Government order dated: 4-10-2007, Complainants again approached O.P. Inspite of repeated requests O.P. failed to deliver possession of the site to the complainant and has complained to O.P.3 B.D.A., regarding the acts of O.P.1 and 2. O.P.3 also failed to take any action against O.P. 1 and 2. For no fault of than complainants were made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Hence complainants felt deficiency in service against the O.Ps. Under these circumstances they are advised to file these complaints and sought for the releifs accordingly. For the convenience sake, site no. measurement of site, amount paid, date and No. of receipts, date of sale deed etc., are noted below in the chart.
Sl. No. | C.C.No. | Site No. | Measure ment of site | Date of Sale deed | Date of & No. of receipts | Amount paid |
1 | 1817/09 | 1076/13/5 | 30 X 50 fts | 4/5/06 | 31/3/2006 3413 31/3/2006 3414 31/3/2006 23243 | 4,00,000-00 2,25,000-00 50,000-00 6,75,000-00 |
2 | 1818/09 | 1076/13/5 | 30 X 50 fts. | 4/5/06 | 4/10/04 1663 31/3/06 3416 31/3/06 3415 11/11/05 23165 | 5,000-00 2,25,000-00 1,50,000-00 2,95,000-00 6,75,000-00 |
O.P.1 entered appearance through advocate filed memo along with, notice and order of joint registrar of co-op. societies stating presently he is not a director of the O.P.1. Hence Complainant filed application to amend the cause title. Application allowed. Cause title amended. Name of the President Mr.Krishna Bhatt deleted and Mr. name of Mr. K.G.Narasimha Swamy, Secretary was brought on record. Fresh notice was sent to O.P.1. Mr. K.G.Narasimha Swamy. Inspite of service of notices O.P.1 & 2 remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. Hence O.P.1 & 2 is placed exparte. On appearance O.P.3 filed the version. The defence set out by O.P.3 in both the complaints are identical and same. It is mainly contended that there is no relief claimed against O.P.3. The complaints are barred by limitation. Complaints averments are not within the knowledge of O.P.3; O.P.3 has not approved the layout plan and complaints suffers from non issuance of statutory notice as requested under the act; There is no privity of contract between complainant and O.P.3 or O.P.1 & 2 between O.P.3; O.P.3 never allotted any site to the members of the society and never executed any sale deed infavour complainants or O.P.1 & 2. Complainants are not its member or allotte under O.P.3. Among other grounds prayed for dismissal the complaint.
4. To substantiate the complaint averments each complainant filed their affidavit evidence and produced respective certified copy of the sale deeds, receipts, intimation of site allotment, (memo) possession certificate, No due certificate, No objection certificate, copy of the police complaint. O.P.1 & 2 did not participate proceedings. On behalf of O.P.3 Sri BASAPPA, Deputy Secretary, filed his affidavit in support of the defence version, and not produced any documents. Complainant filed written arguments. Heard arguments from complainant and O.P.3.
5. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in these complaints are as under:
Point No.1: Whether the complainants have
proved the deficiency in service
on the part of the OP No.3 ?
Point No.2 :If so, whether the complainants are
entitled for the reliefs now claimed?
Point No.3 : To what Order ?
6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:
Point No.1 :- In negative.
Point No.2 :- In negative against O.P.3
In Affirmative against O.P.1 & 2.
Point No.3 :- As per final order.
R E A S O N S
7. At the out set it is not in dispute that these complainants being lured away with the advertisement and propaganda issued by the O.P., become the member of the O.P. house building co-op. society and opted to purchase a site measuring 30 X 50 fts. In phase IV of the O.P. layout at Girinagar, Bangalore. O.P. accepted the membership of the each complainant, allotted and registered site bearing No.1076/13/6 and collected sale consideration of Rs.6,75,000/- from each complainant. The copy of the registered sale deed and receipts issued by O.P. are produced in each case. It is the grievance of the complainants that though they waited for more than 5 years and made repeated requests and demands to O.P. to ear mark the site and put the complainants in possession. It went in vain. Complainants approached O.P.3 and complained about the illegal acts of O.P.1 & 2. O.P.3 failed to take any action against O.P.1 & 2, safe guarding interest of the complainants. Complainants lodged the complaint with Girinagar police. Copy of the police complainant is produced. On repeated requests O.P. failed to ear mark the site and put the complainants in possession. Hence complainants approached this Forum.
8. As against the case of the Complainants it is contended by the O.P.3 that there is no issuance of statutory notice to O.P.3 and these is no privity of contract between the complainant and O.P.3 or O.P.1 and 2 and O.P.3. O.P.3 never allotted any sites to the members of the society. O.P.3 has not approved the layout plan. Complainant never executed any sale deed infavour of the complainant or O.P.1 and 2. Complainant is not a member or a consumer under O.P.3. There is some force in the say of the O.P.3. These contentions of O.P.3 are not denied by the complainant. Since no relief is claimed against O.P.3. The complaints are stand dismissed against O.P.3.
9. On admission and registration of the complainant notices were sent to O.P.1 and 2. Though O.P.1 and 2 are duly served with the notice remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. Hence 1 and 2 are placed exparte.
10. From absence of O.P.1 and 2 we can draw the inference that O.P.1 and 2 admits all the allegations made by the each of the complainants in toto. The unchallenged affidavit evidence and documents produced corroborates the case of the complainant. There is nothing to disbelieve the sworn statement of the complainant. Though the complainant invested their hard earned money they are unable to reap the traits of their investment. O.P. having accepted the sale consideration of Rs.6,75,000/- in each case, executed the registered sale deeds showing same site in both the sale deeds no. infavour of the each complainant and failed to ear mark the site and put the complainants in possession since five years. This act of O.P. amounts to deficiency in service. It appearance there is no existence of site. Hence the relief of possession cannot be granted. Complainants can approval the Civil Court for the redressal. There is no proof that O.P. had even formed the layout as promised without there being any sites. O.P. has issued no objection to contruct building and no due certificate to the complainants. We have perused the order of the joint registrar of co-op societies.
11. Complainant has sought for to ear mark the site and to put the complainant in possession of the site or registration of any alternative site. Complainants have failed to produce any documents to show that whether any such layout has been formed duly approved by the statutory authorities and sites are freely available free from encumbrances as on today. From the documents produced it appears same site has been sold to each complainants. Hence the reliefs sought cannot be granted. Under the circumstances of the case we are of the considered view that each complainant is entitle for the relief of refund of amount paid along with compensation Rs. 1 lakh and interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and cost of Rs.1000/- . Accordingly we proceed to pass the following order.
O R D E R
1) The complaints are allowed in part.
2) In C.C.No.1817/2009 O.P.1 and 2 are directed to allot & register any alternative site in the same layout at the same cost and register at the cost of the O.P. If not possible for any reason to do refund Rs.6,75,000/- together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of respective payments till the date of realisation & to pay compensation to of Rs.1 lakh and pay litigation cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant.
3) In C.C.No.1818/2009 O.P.1 and 2 are directed to allot & register any alternative site in the same layout at the same cost and register at the cost of the O.P. If not possible for any reason to refund Rs.6,75,000/- together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date
of respective payments till the date of realisation & to pay compensation of Rs.1 lakh and pay litigation cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant.
4) Complaint against O.P.3 is dismissed. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of communication of this order.
The original order shall be kept in the file of Complaint No.1817/2009 and copy is it shall be Placed in other respective file.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 13th day of June – 2011.)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
RK:
