The Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society Ltd.,
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
Date of Filing:15.10.2008 Date of Order:19.11.2008 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2008 PRESENT Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member. Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member. COMPLAINT NO: 2231 OF 2008 Dr. A. Krishnamoorthy S/o. late K.V. Aswatha Reddy R/at No. 32, I Floor, II Cross Amarjyothinagar, R.T. Nagar Post Bangalore 560 032 Complainant V/S The Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. No. 100, 11th Cross 6th Main, Malleshwaram Bangalore 560 003 Rep. by its Secretary Opposite Party ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The facts of the case are that the complainant is a member of opposite party society with Role No. 160 and account No. 9962. He had applied for allotment of site measuring 30X40. He had paid Rs. 22,000/- to the opposite party. Rs. 9,500/- was paid on 24.04.1985 and Rs. 12,500/- was paid on 18.07.1986. Complainant requested several times to the opposite party to execute sale deed. He had also sent legal notice requesting the opposite party to execute sale deed. In spite of notice and demand the opposite party has not executed sale deed. Therefore, the complainant has prayed that the opposite party may be directed to execute sale deed in respect of site allotted as per the provisional allotment letter or alternatively complainant requested for refund of Rs. 22,000/- with 18% interest p.a. 2. Notice issued to opposite party. Opposite party has put in appearance through advocate Sri Shivaramaiah and defence version filed. In the defence version the opposite party has explained that due to so many litigations and legal hurdles layout could not be formed as promised. Therefore, society was not in a position to allot and execute sale deed. However, the opposite party has admitted that it is ready to refund the amount to the complainant with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. 3. Arguments are heard. Perused the documents and after considering the submission made by both the learned advocates of the parties since there are legal hurdles the society has not formed the layout. Therefore, it is not in a position to allot sites to its members. In connected matters the opposite party society is refunding the amount to the members with interest. Therefore, in this case also it is just, fair and proper to direct the opposite party to refund the amount to the complainant with interest. The learned advocate for the opposite party argued that reasonable rate of interest be allowed since this is a matter of 1985. The complainant has prayed grant of interest at 18% p.a. on the amount. Taking into consideration that amount has paid in the year 1985 and 1986 it would be just, fair, proper and reasonable to grant 15% interest p.a. on the amount paid by the complainant. In the result I proceed to pass the following: ORDER 4. The Complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 22,000/- to the complainant along with 15% interest p.a. from the date of respective payments (Rs. 9,500/- was paid on 24.04.1985 and Rs. 12,500/- was paid on 18.07.1986) till payment / realization. 5. The complainant is entitled for Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of the present proceedings from the opposite party. 6. Communicate the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs as a statutory requirement. 7. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2008. Order accordingly, PRESIDENT We concur the above findings. MEMBER MEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
