Complaint filed on: 14-10-2010
Disposed on: 14-01-2011
BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE
URBAN DISTRICT NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN
CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052
COMPLAINT NO.2371/2010
DATED THIS THE 14th JANUARY 2011
PRESENT
SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT
SRI.GANGANARASAIAH, MEMBER
SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER
Complainant:
Smt.Suryakumari Vedula
W/o. Sri.Subrahmanyam Vedula,
Aged about 62 years,
Flat No.101, No.18, Sri Vashishta,
5th Temple Street, 15th Cross,
Malleswaram, Bangalore-03
V/s
Opposite Party:
The Vyalikaval House Building
Co-operative Society Ltd,
No.62, 7th Main Road,
Between 8th and 9th Cross,
Malleswaram, Bangalore-03
Represented by its Secretary
O R D E R
SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:
The grievance of the complainant against the opposite party [herein after called as OP] in brief is, that he is a member of the OP society applied for an allotment of site measuring 40ft X 60ft and deposited in all Rs.55,000/- with the OP on different dates towards cost of the sites. That the OP had sent a letter on 5-11-1982 to him stating that the government has given permission to purchase required land for formation of layout. The OP had also issued a provisional allotment letter allotting of a site on 1-12-1986. But thereafter even after payment of full cost of the site and promising to allot a site in Chanakyapuri layout, OP failed to make final allotment. Despite several approaches and demands, OP has failed to make final allotment of a site in his favour. The OP went on assuring to provide a site though has collected entire sital value. But when they failed to provide a site, she sent a letter to him on 4-1-2010 stating to have applied for a loan and as soon as the loan is released, they will pay back her money, but failed to keep up his promise. Then she sent another letter on 6-7-2010 demanding for repayment. Then OP sent another reply on 12-7-2010 promising to refund by 15th or 20th July 2010, but stated that OP has not paid the money. Thereby has prayed for a direction to the OP to refund Rs.55,000/- with interest at 18% per annum till 29-9-2010.
2. OP has appeared through his advocate and filed version, without denying that the complainant is a member of the society and also not denied receipt of total consideration of Rs.55,000/-. OP referring to the acquisition of certain lands in Kothanur and other villages and preliminary notification was issued on 4-8-1986 has stated acquisition was quashed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.15625/1987, on challenging the acquisition then matter was taken to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in special leave petition No.13339/1991 which was dismissed with a direction to hand over possession of the acquired lands to the respective land owners. That their money paid to the LAO was held up and referring to writ petition filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka for a direction to refund the deposited money and subsequent writ petition filed to get back money from the LAO and has also referred to the order of the Hon’ble high Court for refund of money and consequent contempt proceeding for having not refunded the deposited money. Further stated because of the order of quashing the acquisition of land, they have not been able to get the land or the money paid by them. It is further stated having regard to these facts they are not liable to pay interest on the complainant’s money and therefore, denying any deficiency at their end has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and OP have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant along with the complaint has produced copies of receipts for having made payment to the OP and copy of legal notice he got issued to the OP demanding refund of money. OP has produced copies of acquisition proceedings, judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, copy of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and a decision of the Hon’ble High Court. Counsel for the complainant has filed written arguments. We have heard the counsel for OP and perused the records.
4. On the above contentions following points for determination arise.
1. Whether the complainant proves that the OP has caused deficiency in his service in not refunding the money paid by him?
2. To what reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?
5. Our findings are as under:
Point No.1: In the affirmative
Point No.2: See the final order
REASONS:
6. Answer on point no.1: On perusal of the rival contentions, we do not find much dispute between the parties, we regard to this complainant having had became a member of OP society seeking allotment of a site. The complainant has produced documents to proves that he in all had paid Rs.55,000/- on different dates towards cost of sites. OP though has not denied the documents filed by the complainant in proof, the total amount paid by the complainant. Hence, the complainant could be conveniently be said to had paid a total sum of Rs.55,000/-towards the cost of site.
7. OP without disputing the purpose for which the amount was paid by the complainant and also admitting that they have not allotted site to the complainant, contended that the lands acquired on their behalf for formation of layout was quashed by the High Court and the order was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and they have delivered back possession of the lands to the respective land lords. The complainant is not denying the litigations that crop up and this OP losing the lands. OP has also referred to a decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashing acquisition. We also find the order of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No.26916/1997 and other connected matter wherein direction was given to land acquisition officer to refund the OP’s money. But as contended by the OP and his counsel, it appears that the OP has not been able to get back his entire money he has paid to the land acquisition officer as consideration for acquisition of land. The learned counsel for the OP even during arguments submitted that even till date, they have not been able to get back their money from the land acquisition officer and therefore, they were not able to refund the complainant’s money. This submission of the counsel for the OP has not been controverted by counsel for the complainant. Therefore, it is manifest from this fact that objective of the OP to provide site to its members was defeated by quashing acquisition proceedings. It is also undisputedly established that compensation they had deposited with the land acquisition officer has not been fully repaid to them. Therefore under these circumstances as held by the Hon’ble High Court in a decision reported in AIR SC 2010 page 486, the OP cannot be burdened with payment of interest on the amount paid. Further, the contention of the OP that claim of the complainant is barred by limitation cannot be accepted, because as admitted by the OP himself the issue of providing site or refund of money has been under litigation since several years and it is not ended even as on today. Therefore the complainant who was and has been touch with the OP for one or the other reliefs has been made to wait, that being so, the OP cannot take the defence of limitation to deny the complainant’s money.
8. The complainant it is found except through a letter dated 4-1-2010 had not demanded refund of his money at any time earlier. Therefore the complainant, in our view is entitled for interest on the money paid by him from the date such demand till the date of payment. With this we hold that the complaint deserves to be allowed and accordingly we answer point no.1 in the affirmative and pass the following order.
O R D E R
Complaint is allowed. OP is directed to refund Rs.55,000/- with interest at 15% per annum from 4-1-2010 till the date of payment and OP shall refund that money with interest within 60 days from the date of this order.
OP shall also pay cost of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant.
Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open forum on this the 14th January 2011.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
