Complaint filed on: 26-04-2010 <br /> Disposed on: 07-09-2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT <br /> CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052 <br /> <br /> C.C.No.963/2010<br /> DATED THIS THE 7th SEPTEMBER 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT<br /> SRI.GANGANARASAIAH., MEMBER<br /> SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER<br /> <br /> Complainant: - <br /> Sri.T.R.Nagaraja <br /> S/o. T.N.Ramachandrappa<br /> Residing at No.232, 7th main, <br /> 7th cross, RPC layout, <br /> Vijayanagar 2nd stage, <br /> Bangalore-560040 <br /> <br /> V/s<br /> <br /> Opposite party: - <br /> <br /> V.Bhaser Reddy,<br /> Managing partner of <br /> M/s. New County, <br /> Presidency Group Township<br /> Promoters, No.895/1,<br /> “Skanda”, 14th Cross, <br /> Mahalakshmi Layout, <br /> Bangalore -86 <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT., <br /> <br /> The Grievance of the complainant against the opposite party [hereinafter called as OP for short) in brief is that, the Op is a partnership firm has floated a scheme for allotting residential site at Ittamadu village, Bidadi hobli Ramanagaram taluk. He as prospective buyer applied for purchase of a site at Rs.575/- per Sq. ft. measuring 30ft X 40ft and paid as advance amount of Rs.2,27,000/- to the OP. The OP on receipt of that amount entered into an agreement to sell site No.21 on 15-11-2007. But thereafter, the OP went on promising to provide a site by further stating that the layout is under process and telling him to pay balance amount. Despite several approaches, the OP did not show any progress and to keep up his promise. The OP failing to provide a site has agreed has to pay 1/3rd value on the amount paid in the buy bake scheme and therefore attributing deficiency to the OP in either not providing a site or in refunding the money as agreed in the agreement of sale has prayed for a direction to the OP to refund his money together with 1/3rd value amounting to Rs.75,666/- with interest 18% per annum and to award cost. <br /> <br /> 2. Op has appeared through his advocate and filed his version, admitting to have entered into an agreement of sale and receipt of advance amount Rs.2,27,000/- but contended that there had been a ban for conversion of land of Bidadi, Magadi, Nelamangala and other places and because of this, land lock for a period of one year, he was not able to get land converted into non-agricultural purpose. That land lock is now released and the government is now approving master plan and stated to have applied for conversion and approval of the layout plan and stated that the delay is bonafide and un-intentional. He has offered to provide a site as an alternative in M/S.Royal Orchids situated at Dhanagahalli village, Mysore taluk and stated that the complainant has filed this complaint to harass him and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant has filed affidavit evidence reiterating what he has stated in the complaint. The OP has not filed affidavit evidence. The complainant alongwith the complaint has produced a copy of agreement of sale, copy of brochure issued by the OP and letter dated 23-5-2009 addressed to the OP for refund of money. We have heard the complainant who is in person, since the advocate for the OP remained absent is taken as heard and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 4. On the above contentions following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that Op has <br /> Caused deficiency in his service in not either <br /> Providing a site or refunding the money paid?<br /> 2. To what reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:<br /> Point no.1: In the affirmative<br /> Point no.2: See the final Order<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Answer on Point No.1: As already referred to above, we find no dispute between the parties, in this OP having and received Rs.2,27,000/- from the complainant promising him to allot a site in the year 2007. But as sworn to by the complainant, the OP did not bother to take action to get land for formation of layout and as stated by the complainant no progress was done until this complaint is presented. The OP by filing version to this complaint for first time has stated as if there had been a ban for conversion of land and therefore he could not form layout. Though he has produced a Xerox copy and paper cutting regarding this ban, but it is not proved, since from which date till what year ban was and what the other step he had taken for purchase of land and to take other needed steps. The OP despite receipt of letter from the complainant for refund of his money in the early part 2009 did not even move an inch to accede to the request of the complainant. Therefore, the OP after receipt of considerable money could not have kept quite without being in touch with the complainant to convince him about progress. <br /> <br /> 7. The OP has not even replied to the request letter of the complainant requesting to refund the money. Therefore we find no justification for OP in having had withheld the complainant money. The OP has now for the first time has come forward to give alternative site in Mysore taluk. The agreement sale was to sell a site at Bidadi and now offering to provide a site at Mysore taluk is not agreeable to the complainant. The OP has not even filed his affidavit evidence to discredit the complainant claim. Therefore the complainant having lost faith in the OP had asked for refund of money, the OP cannot refused and we hold this omission amounts to deficiency. <br /> <br /> 8. The complainant in the complaint has asked for buy back benefits as stated in the agreement, but the complainant having had not exercised his option within a period 2 months from the date of taking agreement he has lost this option of getting benefit under buy back scheme. Therefore the complainant is entitled for interest on the amount paid, with the result we answer point no.1 in the affirmative and pass the following order.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complaint is allowed. Op is directed to refund Rs.2,27,000/- with interest at 16% per annum from the date of respective payments till the amount is refunded. OP shall refund the amount with interest within 60 days from the date of this order <br /> <br /> Ops shall also pay cost of Rs.4000/- to the complainant. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, Got it transcribed and corrected, Pronounced on the Open Forum on this 7th September 2010.<br /> <br /> Member Member President<br />