(Order dictated by Shri. B.V.Gudli, President)

COMMON ORDER

            I. Though the complainants are different, their grievances, allegations and the facts pleaded are same except the details of the deposits by the complainants.  In all the cases the opponents are same, as shown in the cause title. Hence for convenience all the cases are disposed of by the common order.

          II. Since there are 3 cases and same complainants are there having different address and particulars of their deposits being different, for brevity and also for clarity and to avoid confusion, names of the parties of the particular case only will be shown in the cause title.

          1) The relevant facts of the cases are that the complainant/s have filed these complaints u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in non-allotting the sites.

          2) Inspite of service of notice O.Ps.1 to 3 remained absent. Hence placed exparte.

          3) In support of the claim in the complaints, complainant/s  have filed their affidavits and documents are produced by the complainant/s in comp.388/16 produced Ex.P-1 original welcome letter, Ex.P-2 original agreement deed, Ex.P-3 to 17 original payment Receipts, Ex.P-18 office copy of legal notice, Ex.P-19 original postal receipt and Ex.P-20 unclaimed RPAD. In comp.391/16 Ex.P-1 original welcome letter, Ex.P-2 original agreement deed, Ex.P-3 to 26 original payment Receipts, Ex.P-27 office copy of legal notice, Ex.P-28 original postal receipt and Ex.P-29 unclaimed RPAD.  In comp.399/16 Ex.P-1 original welcome letter, Ex.P-2 original agreement deed, Ex.P-3 to 18 original payment Receipts, Ex.P-19 office copy of legal notice, Ex.P-20 original postal receipt and Ex.P-21 unclaimed RPAD.  

          4) We have heard the arguments and perused the records.

          5) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant/s have proved deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and entitled to the reliefs sought?

6) Our finding on the point is partly in affirmative, for the following reasons.

:: R E A S O N S ::

7) On the perusal contents of the complaint/s and affidavit filed by the complainant/s, the OP company has introduced Swarna Bhumi Phase-1 (Own your property) scheme. In the said scheme the OPs invited the public to invest money & assured that they will get a residential plot measuring 30’ x 40’ in any of the layouts of the OP company. Accordingly the OP company has entered into an agreement in respect of the same with the complainant/s on different dates.  Accordingly the complainant/s paid Rs.2,000/- on the date of agreement & further paid the regular agreed 47 instalments in total of Rs.70,500/- in compt.388 & 391/16 respectively and Rs.21,000/- in compt.399/16 as agreed with OP company. The complainant/s were also given ID numbers. But the OP company has not made any process of allotment of the sites either by way of lucky dip or otherwise. The complainant/s have approached the officials of the OP at Belagavi many times and requested to proceed for allotment of the sites as agreed. But the OPs have tried to avoid the complainant/s. Hence the complainant/s got issued legal notice through their counsel on 11.01.2016 calling upon the OPs either to allot a site of 30’ x 40’ in any vicinity as per the agreement or to refund the amount paid by them with interest and compensation. The OP company has managed to evade its service and avoided the same. Hence opponents have committed deficiency in service as contemplated under the provision of the consumer protection act 1986.

8) On perusal evidence affidavit of the complainant/s, on the assurances of the OP company the complainant/s have entered into an agreement deed for purchase of their respective plots and thereafter the complainant/s have paid Rs.2,000/- on the date of agreement & further paid the regular agreed 47 instalments in total of Rs.70,500/- in compt.388 & 391/16 respectively and Rs.21,000/- in compt.399/16, as agreed with OP company. To prove the same the complainants have produced original welcome letter, original agreement deed, original payment Receipts. On the other hand, inspite of issuance of notice from the forum the OPs.1 to 3 remained absent, hence they have been placed exparte. Therefore there is no dispute with regard to the payments made by the complainant/s towards purchase of sites. Inspite of service of notices from this forum and also taking paper publication by complainant/s, O.Ps remained absent. Hence placed exparte. It is well settled legal position that non allotment of the sites after receipt of the amount, amounts to deficiency in service.

9) Taking into consideration of the facts, evidence on record and the discussion made here before deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. has been proved.

10) Accordingly, following

ORDER

          The complaint/s are partly allowed.

     The Opponents.1 to 3  as shown in the cause title are hereby jointly and severally  directed and liable to allot sites to the complainants as per the agreements or to refund Rs.72,500/- each in compt.388 & 391/16 respectively and Rs.23,000/- in compt.399/16 with 9% P.A. with future interest from the date of their last payment till realization of the entire amount. 

          Further the Opponents.1 to 3  as shown in the cause title are hereby jointly and severally  directed and liable to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,000/- in each case towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- in each case towards cost of the proceedings.

 The Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of the order.

The original order shall be kept in complaint No.388/2016 and the true copy in other connected cases.

         (Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 14 July 2017)