COMPLAINT FILED: 27.05.2009<br /> DISPOSED ON: 12.08.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 12TH AUGUST 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M.BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1210/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT S.Sathya Murthy,S/o.Late Segu Suryanarayana Shetty, Aged about 70 Years,R/at.C/o.Sri.K.G.Vasudeva,No.3, “Pranava’s”, 2md Main,1st Cross, Vivekananda Colony,Near Sarakki Vegetable Market, Banashankari,Bangalore – 560 078.Advocate – Sri.H.T.RavindraV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Secretary,Amar-Jyothi House Building –Co-operative Society Ltd.,No.40, MNK Rao Road,Basavanagudi,Bangalore – 560 004.Advocate – Sri.G.Kasturi<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay compensation and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> 2. Complainant with fond hope of acquiring site at Bangalore contacted the OP the House Building Co-operative society. OP accepted his membership and promised to allot him a site, thereby collected sital value of Rs.27,677/- on various dates starting from 1983. Though OP collected the entire sital value failed to complete the said project and failed to register the site. The repeated request and demands made by the complainant either to allot the site or refund the amount paid with interest went in futile. Complainant issued a legal notice, again there was no response. Thus complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of his he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 3. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complaint is barred by time. OP did collected certain sital value from the members and paid the same to the land lords who’s lands they have acquired for the formation of the said layout. Unfortunately the entire acquisition proceedings were quashed and said order was upheld by the Honorable Apex Court. Then OP was made to hand over the possession of the said land to the respective owners. Under such circumstances OP is neither in possession of the land nor the amount received from the members. OP is making sincere efforts by approaching the Government to recover the said award amount from the land lords. But it is unable to succeed. No fault lies with the OP. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Because of the legal hurdles OP is unable to complete the project. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 5. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 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:<br /> <br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 7. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant became the member of the OP Housing Building Co-opertive Society with a fond hope of purchasing a plot in the project floated by OP in the name and style ‘Sarakki Layout’. It is further contended that he has paid in all Rs.27,677/- towards the cost of the plot right from the year1983. But still OP failed to allot him a site. Thus he felt that he is duped. Though complainant waited patiently for more than 25 years he is unable to reap fruits of his investment. Hence, he caused a legal notice on 25-02-2009, copy of the legal notice is produced. Again there was no response. OP neither completed the said project nor refund the sital value, hence, complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP.<br /> <br /> 8. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant the OP has come up with the defence that complaint is barred by time. We find no force in the said submission because once when OP accepted his membership and promised him to allot the site and collected sital value till it performs its part of contract and obligation and fulfill the promise the complainant will get the recurring cause of action. Of course OP has further contended that they did acquire the required quantity of land from the land owners for the formation of the said layout and paid lumsum amount to the land owners and took possession of the land under acquisition proceedings. But thereafter unfortunately Honorable High Court of Karnataka quashed the said acquisition proceedings. The land lords who have received the money failed to return the same much less as per the orders of the Honorable Apex Court the land lords repossessed the lands. These legal hurdles and dispute is not otherwise disputed or denied by the complainant. <br /> <br /> 9. On the perusal of the facts and circumstance of the case it is made clear that OP is unable to complete the said project. When that is so, with all sincerity and fairness it would have refunded the sital value. But it failed to do so. OP has come up with the plea that it has moved the Government of Karnataka to recover the said money from the land lords and pay it to them. But OP is unable to succeed in its efforts. OP cannot keep the complainant in darkness and make him to wait indefinitely for the refund of the cost. This hostile attitude of the OP in our view amounts to deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 10. Though complainant invested his hard earned money about two decades back is unable to reap fruits of his investment that too for no fault of his. Under such circumstance he must have suffered both mental agony and financial loss. The evidence of the complainant which finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents has remained unchallenged. The defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake, just to shrink its responsibility. <br /> <br /> 11. We have satisfied that the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence, he is entitled for the relief claimed to some extent. With these reasons we Answer to Point 1 & 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following : -<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part.<br /> <br /> OP is directed to refund Rs.17,000/- with 12% interest from June’1983 till realization and pay a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-.<br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 12th day of August 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> NRS<br />