COMPLAINTS FILED ON:13.06.2011

DISPOSED ON:13.07.2012

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

13^th DAY OF JULY-2012

  PRESENT:-  SRI. B.S. REDDY                    PRESIDENT

                      SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA                     MEMBER               

           COMPLAINT Nos. 1057, 1058, 1059,

                                     1060, 1061, 1249

                               & 1267/2011

COMMON ORDER

SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT

All these complaints by the respective complainants U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to allot the sites alternatively to refund the sital deposit with interest at 24% p.a. and to pay compensation on the allegation of deficiency in service.

Since the OP is common in all these complaints, the questions involved and the relief’s claimed being similar in nature, 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 Society registered with an object to develop and allot the housing sites to its Members.   These complainants with an intention to acquire sites approached the Op-Society became members of OP and applied for the sites by paying the sital deposit as shown in the chart below.

OP issued the Provisional Allotment letters but failed to allot the sites as no layout was formed.  The complainants demanded for refund of the amount by submitting the representations and issuing legal notice, OP neither complied the demand nor replied for the letters and notices.   Hence, the complainants felt deficiency in service on the part of the Op and filed these complaints seeking the reliefs stated above.

 3. On appearance Op filed version with similar contentions in all these complaints.   It is stated that the lands in different villages identified by the Op-Society were acquired by the government in favour of the OP-Society.   At the stage of passing award and handing over possession of acquisition lands some of the land owners had challenged the acquisition before the High Court, the acquisition proceedings were set aside.   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 and the same was dismissed on 21/02/1995 confirming the Order of the High Court.    There was further direction to the Government to return the lands to the land owners and thereafter pay to the society.     The society has to get back the money from the Government.  The site aspiring members who had deposited amount have been informed that site deposit amount shall not earn interest and the same was informed through Circular dt.31.12.1984.   As per the ruling reported 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.    The present cases are similarly placed.   There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Op.    The complaints are barred by Limitation.   Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaints with exemplary costs.

4.               The complainants in order to substantiate complaint averments, each of the complainants have filed affidavit evidence.   The Secretary of the OP-Society 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 our 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 the members of the Op-Society, on the basis of the propaganda made by the Op who claims to be the house building Co-operative Society with a hope of getting residential sites.   Each of these complainants deposited the amounts as shown in the above chart for allotment of the sites in the proposed layouts to be formed by the Op. OP also issued Provisional Allotment Letters and receipts.   In the Pass Book issued by OP entries are being made with regard to the payments made by each of these complainants.   OP neither formed any layout and allotted the sites as assured nor refunded the amount deposited by these complainants, in spite of repeated representations and legal notices.   Thus the complainants felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

9.   As against the cases of the complainants, the defence of the OP is that due to legal hurdles it is unable to complete the projects and whatever the amount OP has received from its members towards sital deposits is paid to the Developers and deposited with the Government towards compensation payable to the land lords and the said amount still lies with the Government.   Further the defence of the Op is lands acquired for the purpose of formation of the layouts are repossessed by the land owners in view of the quashing of the land acquisition proceedings.  In our view OP has failed to substantiate the defence regarding depositing entire amount with the Government by producing documents.   Thus the some and substance of the defence set out by OP is that it is unable to complete the projects due to the quashing of the land acquisition proceedings and it is unable to refund the sital value to the complainants because the said amounts are used for paying the compensation to the land owners by depositing same with the Government and that amount is still leaving with the Government.

10.   On the close scrutiny of the defence set out by OP it can be made out that OP collected the amounts towards the sital value from these complainants with a promise that it complete the project and register the sites but the projects could not be completed on account of the acquisition being quashed.   When OP was aware of the fact that it is unable to complete the project, it would have been fair on its part to refund the sital value collected to the complainants.   No such steps are taken.  Hence, we are of the view that the act of OP neither forming the layout and allotting the sites nor refunding the sital deposit to the complainants amounts to deficiency in service.  Having retained the amounts of these complainants for more than 15 years, OP accrued wrongful gain to itself and thereby caused wrongful loss to the complainants.  

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

12.   The principles laid down in AIR-2010 Supreme Court Page-486 Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority and another V/s Daya Singh are not applicable to the facts of these cases.   OP-Society is not a Developing Statutory Authority.    Acquisition proceedings were quashed by the Hon’ble High Court and the said Order was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition filed by the OP in the year 1995 itself.   Even thereafter Op has failed to refund the amount to the complainants.    Therefore, we are of the view that OP is liable to pay interest by way of compensation on the said sital deposits at the rate of 18% p.a.   In Appeal No.1211/2011 to 1214/2011 the Hon’ble State Commission in similar cases against the same OP interest has been awarded at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of respective payments till the date of realization.  

            The relief sought by the complainants for a direction to allot sites cannot be considered for the reason that OP has not formed any layouts and no sites are available for allotment.    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. from the respective date of payments till the date of realization along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- in each case.   Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

O R D E R

The complaints filed by the complainants allowed in part.

In complaint No.1057/2011 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.54,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 17/12/1987 till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.

In complaint No.1058/2011 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.54,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the respective date of payments, till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.

In complaint No.1059/2011 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.37,500/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the respective date of payments, till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.

In complaint No.1060/2011 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.85,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the respective date of payments, till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.

In complaint No.1061/2011 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.69,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the respective date of payments, till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.

In complaint No.1249/2011 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.69,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the respective date of payments, till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.

In complaint No.1267/2011 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.31,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the respective date of payments, till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.

OP 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.1057/2012 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 13^th day of JULY– 2012.)

MEMBER                                                         PRESIDENT

CS.,