COMPLAINTS FILED ON:27.04.2012

DISPOSED ON:30.07.2012  

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

  30^th DAY OF JULY 2012

  PRESENT:-  SRI. B.S. REDDY                    PRESIDENT

                      SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA                     MEMBER              

COMPLAINT Nos. 867, 868, 869,

                                    870, 871, 872/2012

COMMON ORDER

SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT

These are the complaints filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, by the respective complainants seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund the sital deposit with interest at 18% p.a. and to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to each on the allegation of deficiency in service.

Since Ops are common in all these complaints, the questions involved and the relief’s claimed being similar, in order to avoid the repetition of facts and multiplicity of reasoning’s all these complaints are stand disposed of by this common order.

2. The case of the complainants to be stated in brief is that:

OP is a registered Society registered under the provisions of Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, the same is a house building society and had notified to the public to enroll as members in relation to allotment of sites to be formed in the layout known as “Vishweshwaraiah Nagar layout” at Bilekahalli and Kodichikkanahalli of Bannerghatta Road in the year 1989.     Based on the said publication made by OP, these complainants enrolled themselves as members of Op and applied for allotment of sites in the proposed layout by depositing the initial deposit.   OP has issued the Provisional Allotment of letters acknowledging the receipt of the initial sital deposits.   In spite of repeated requests by these complainants, OP failed to allot the sites and these complainants gave representation on 01.12.2011 to refund the amount deposited with interest at 18% p.a. For the said representation, OP replied on 28.12.2011 stating that OP is facing financial problem, they are expecting some funds within 2 or 3 months, soon after receipt of the same,        OP will refund amounts.   In spite of such undertaking to refund the amounts, till date OP has not refunded the amount deposited by these complainants.   Hence, the complainants felt deficiency in service on the part of the Op.   The details of the payments made by each of these complainants is as shown in the below chart.

Thus the complaints. 

3.   On appearance Op filed version with similar contentions in all these complaints, it is stated that the lands in different villages identified by OP-society were acquired by Government in favour of Op.    At the stage of passing award and handing over possession of the lands, some of the land owners had challenged the acquisition before the Hon’ble High Court, acquisitions were quashed.   OP has invested huge money on the process of acquisition.   The money invested was the money of the members who had deposited money as site deposit.   OP-Society preferred CLP 12/04-107/91 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the Order of the High Court and the Supreme Court confirmed the Order of the High Court in the year-1995.    There was further direction to the Government to return the lands to the land owners and thereafter pay to the Op-Society.   The Op-Society has to get back the money from the Government.   The hardship faced by the Society is loosing lands as well as portion of the deposited amount in the government.   The site aspiring members who had deposited amount have been informed that the site deposit amounts shall not carry interest and the same was through a Circular dt.31.12.1984.     As per the principles laid down in AIR-2010 SC 486 the developmental Authorities need not pay interest on the deposit amount for the delay or failure of the projects if there is interference by the orders of the courts.      These cases are similarly placed hence OP-Society is not liable to pay interest.   There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Op.    The Op has informed its members about the events which have taken place and as there is no land to form layout the Society has requested the members to take back the amount deposited.     The complainants have approached this forum after lapse of more than 10 years, the claim made is barred by time.   Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaints.

4.   The complainants in order to substantiate complaint averments, the G.P.A., Holder of the complainant in complaint No.867/2012 and the complainants in other complaints filed affidavit evidence.    The Secretary of the OP-Society has filed affidavit evidence in support of the defence version.  

5.   Arguments on both sides heard.

6.   Points for consideration are:

     Point No.1:-  Whether the complainants proved the          

                         deficiency in service on the part of

                          the OP?

       Point No.2:- Whether the complainants are entitled

                   for the reliefs now claimed?

     Point No.3:- To what Order?

7.   We record out findings on the above points:

              Point No.1:- Affirmative,

              Point No.2:- Affirmative in part,

              Point No.3:- As per final Order.

R E A S O N S

8. At the outset it is not at dispute that these complainants became members of Op-Society, On the basis of Propoganda made by the OP who claims to be the house building Co-Operative Society with a hope of getting sites.    OP assured to allot the residential sites to these complainants and issued Provisional Allotment letters in the year-1989 in respect of the proposed layout called “Vishweshwaraiah Nagar layout”, Bannerghatta Road situated at Bilekahalli and Kodichikkanahalli.   Subsequently, OP was not able to form the layout and allot the sites as the lands acquired for the purpose of said layout were not made available as the acquisition proceedings were quashed by the Hon’ble High Court and the same was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.    The complainants submitted the representation for refund of the amount and OP had undertaken to refund the amount within 2 or 3 months but till date Op failed to refund the amount.   The representation was submitted by these complainants on 01.12.2001 and Op has replied for the same on 28.12.2011.   The act of Op neither forming the layout and allotting the sites nor refunding the sital deposit, amounts to deficiency in service on its part.

9. We are unable to accept the defence of the OP that the complaints are barred by limitation.   When once OP accepted the deposits towards sital value with a promise to allot sites to the complainants, till OP allots and register the sale deeds, recurring cause of action will accrue to the complainants.    

10. The principles laid down in AIR 2010 Supreme Court page-486 Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority and another V/s Dayasingh cannot be made applicable to the facts of the cases, for the reason that OP is not a Developing Authority, moreover the acquisition proceedings were quashed long back in spite of that Op failed to refund the amount deposited by these complainants.   When OP was not able to form the layout and allot the sites.   It would have been fair enough on its part to refund the amount to the complainant.   The defence of the OP that entire amount has been deposited with the Government towards acquisition of the lands and that amount is still lying with the Government cannot be accepted.   OP has not produced any material to substantiate the said defence.   Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the complainants are entitled for refund of the amounts deposited with interest at 18% p.a. by way of compensation along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- each.    Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

O R D E R

All these complaints are allowed in part.

In complaint No.867/2012 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.18,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of respective payments till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.

In complaint No.868/2012 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.35,750/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of respective payments till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.

In complaint No.869/2012 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.21,500/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of respective payments till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.

In complaint No.870/2012 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.21,350/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of respective payments till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.

In complaint No.871/2012 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.21,350/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of respective payments till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.

In complaint No.872/2012 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.44,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of respective payments till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.

OPs to comply the order within four weeks from the date of this order.

This original order shall be kept in the file of the complaint No.867/2012 and a copy of it shall be placed in other respective files.

Send the copy of this order to both the parties free of cost.

(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  30^th day of JULY– 2012.)

MEMBER                                                         PRESIDENT

CS.,