COMPLAINT FILED ON: 04.12.2010
DISPOSED ON:08.07.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
8th DAY OF JULY -2011
PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER
SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT No.2789/2010
Complainant OPPOSITE PARTIES | Dr.Ravigouda Holiyappanavar S/o Sathyamurtheppa, Aged bout 34 years, R/at No.8, “Pruthvi Nilaya”, 1st Main, 4th Cross, Near Soundarya School, M.S.Ramaiah Enclave, Bangalore-560 073. Advocate: Sri.C.Krishne Gowda. V/s. 1. The President, Karnataka Legislative Counsel, Secretariat, Employees Welfare Forum(Reg), Vidhana Soucha, Bangalore-560 001, Rep. by its President, Mr.Maharajan. 2. K.V.Venkatesh S/o Late Venkataramaiah, M/s Venkateshwara Estate, And Builders, No.2, 2nd Floor, 4th Main, Neharu Nagara, Sheshadripuram, Bangalore-560 020. Advocate: Babu Pattar. |
O R D E R S
SRI. B.S. REDDY, PRESIDENT
The complainant claiming direction to the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.10,98,000/-paid towards the sital value with interest and other expenses filed this complaint Under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986.
2. As per the complaint averments, OP1 is the registered Welfare Forum and OP2 is the land developer doing Real Estate business. Both these OPs jointly proposed to form a layout by name “VAYUJA COUNSEL GARDEN” situated at Hoovinayakahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. The complainant became member of the OP1 Society and paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 03.10.2008, towards allotment of the site in the proposed layout and he has made earlier payments of Rs.2,92,000/- by cash, Rs.3,30,000/- through cheque dt.10.04.2008 and Rs.80,000/- through another cheque dt.10.04.2008. OPs executed the agreement on 11.04.2008 for a site measuring 40 X 60 sq.ft. When the complainant approached the enforcement of contents of agreement, OPs assured that the project will take another four months to be completed. Again the complainant approached after 4 months, OPs promised that the project will be completed by December-2009. OPs failed to form layout and allot the site as agreed, the complainant demanded for repayment of the amounts paid to the tune of Rs.10,98,000/. OPs issued cheque for the said amount towards repayment on 01.11.2010 but the said cheque was dishonored for the reason funds insufficient. Legal notice was issued on 22.11.2010, OPs neither replied to the notice nor complied the demand. The complainant felt deficiency in service and filed this complaint.
3. On appearance, OPs filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable. It is admitted that the complaint agreed to purchase plot measuring 40 X 60 feet and paid a first instalment of RS.2,00,000/-. OP2 is the land developer doing the real estate business. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, as the OPs have developed the layout according to the approved plan. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. The complainant filed affidavit evidence and produced documents with Memo. One Maharajan filed affidavit evidence in support of the defense version.
5. Arguments on complainant’s side heard. OPs side taken as heard.
6. Points that arise for our consideration are:
Point No.1:- Whether the complainant has proved
the deficiency in service on the part of
the OPs?
Point No.2:- If so, whether the complainant is
entitledfor the reliefs now claimed?
Point No.3:- To what Order?
7. We record our findings on the above points:
Point No.1:- Affirmative.
Point No.2:- Affirmative.
Point No.3:- As per final Order.
R E A S O N S
From the complaint averments and affidavit evidence of the complainant coupled with the documents produced it becomes clear that OPs 1 & 2 promised to allot a site measuring 40 X 60 feet in the proposed layout “VAYUJA COUNSEL GARDEN” situated at Hoovinayakahalli Village, Bangalore, North Taluk, Bangalore Rural District and received total amount of Rs.10,98,000/- from the complainant and executed the agreement deed dt.11.04.2008. OPs failed to form the said layout and allot the site to the complainant. The confirmation letter dt.28.02.2009 issued by OP1 to the complainant clearly goes to show that OPs have admitted the receipt of total amount of Rs.10,98,000/- towards the sital value from the complainant. In the said letter, it is stated that OPs are expecting the approvals in the short period, once get the approval from the concerned authority, the allotment will be done and site number will be issued. When OPs failed to form the layout and allot the site, the complainant demanded for refund of the amount paid. OP1 has issued the cheque dt.01.11.2010 towards repayment of the amount of Rs.10,98,000/- but the said cheque was returned as funds insufficient. The legal notice was issued to the OPs on 22.11.2010. OPs neither replied the said notice nor complied the demand in refunding the amount. Though in the defense version, it is pleaded that the proposed layout has been formed as per the approved plan but OPs have not produced any material in support of the same, as such that defence cannot be accepted. The act of OPs in not forming the layout or in not refunding the amount amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Under these circumstance, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled for the refund of the amount with interest at 18% p.a. from the respective date of payment till the date of realization. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complainant filed by the complaint is allowed.
The OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.10,98,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the respective date of payment till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-to the complainant. The liability of OPs is joint several.
Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.
(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 8th day of July 2011.)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Cs:
