<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 25.05.2009<br /> DISPOSED ON:20.08.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 20TH AUGUST 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M.BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NOS. 1188/2009, 1228/20091229/2009 & 1230/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT IN COMPLAINT NO.1188/09COMPLAINANT IN COMPLAINT NO.1228/09COMPLAINANT IN COMPLAINT NO.1229/09COMPLAINANT IN COMPLAINT NO.1230/09 B.R.ManjashettyS/o.Late.Rajashetty,Aged 67years,Occ:Business,R/o.Lakshmi Nivasa,Pension Mohalla,Chickmagalur,Dist.Chickmagalur.Advocate – Sri.Manjula R.KamdolliP.S.RajammaW/o.Late.H.S.Raghavchar,Major, No.2082, “Harikrupa”8th Main road, Rajajinagar,2nd Stage, Bangalore-10.Advocate – R.S.A.P.AcharH.R.GeethaD/o.Late.H.S.Raghavachar,Major,No.1160, 6th Main,E Block, 2nd Stage,Rajajinagar Bangalore – 10.Advocate – R.S.A.P.AcharH.S.SeetharamS/o.H.S.Srinivasa Rangachar,24th Cross, 15th Main, Banashankari, 2nd Stage,Bangalore – 560 010.Advocate – R.S.A.P.AcharV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Vyalikaval House BuildingCo-operative Society Ltd.,No.62, 7th Main Road, Between 8th & 9th CrossRoad,Beside Jupiter Nursing Home,Malleshwaram,Bangalore – 560 003.Rep. by its Secretary,H.SrinivasanAdvocate – Sri..Rajgopal<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> These are the four complaints filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by respective complainants, seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund the sital value and pay the compensation and for such other relief on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> As the opposite parties in these complaints are common, the question involved, relief claimed being the same, in order to avoid the repetition of facts and multiciplity of reasoning, in the interest of the justice these four cases stand disposed of by this common order.<br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaints, are as under:<br /> <br /> 2. Complainants being lured away with the advertisement and publicity given by the OP who claims to be the Housing Building Co-operative Society engaged in formation of layout in and around Bangalore consisting of sites of various dimensions thought of becoming member of the OP Society. OP accepted their membership, allotted them the Roll No. and Account No. Each one of these complainants intended to purchase a site measuring 40Ft. x 60Ft. Then went on paying sital value starting from the year 1992-1993. Though they paid entire sital value inspite of their repeated request and demands OP failed to allot a site and register a site in their favour. Hence, they caused the legal notice. Again there was no response. For the convenience sake the Roll No., site measurement, amount paid, date of legal notice and refund claimed is noted in a below mentioned chart.<br /> <br /> Compt.No. Roll No.-A/c No. SiteMeasurement Amount Paid LegalNotice AmountClaimed<br /> 1188/09 198714971 40Ft. x 60Ft. Rs.27,500-00By 26.08.92 20.04.09 Rs.63,500-00<br /> 1228/09 23994306 40Ft. x 60Ft. Rs.73,000-00By 24.11.93 10.02.09 Rs.2,04,400-00<br /> 1229/09 111692417 40Ft. x 60Ft. Rs.40,000-00By 12.01.93 10.02.09 Rs.1,12,000-00<br /> 1230/09 119773921 40Ft. x 60Ft. Rs.69,000-00By 24.11.93 10.02.09 Rs.1,93,200-00<br /> <br /> Though complainants invested their hard earned money they are unable to reap the fruits of their investment because of the hostile attitude of the OP. Hence, they felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstance they are advised to file these complaints and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 3. On appearance, OP filed the version, the defence set out by the OP in all the four complaints are similar and identical. According to the OP they did acquired the required quantity of lands for the formation of said layout. But the acquisition was quashed. Because of the pending litigation and so also some of the heirs and kith and kin to land lords raised civil dispute, hence OP is unable to complete the project. After the acquisition of the lands OP paid lumsum amount to the land lords, that money is struck with the land lords. So the OP is neither in possession of the land nor in possession of the money paid by the members like complainants. Under the circumstances they are unable to complete the layout. The OP Society being non-profit organization they are not liable to pay the interest on the sital value paid. As on today no sites are available at their disposal so as to allot to the complainants. The other allegations made by the complainants are false. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Complaints are devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaints.<br /> <br /> 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, each one of the complainants filed their affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 5. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in these complaints are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant have Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether these complainants are <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 7. At the outset it is not at dispute that each one of these complainants became the member of the OP House Building Co-opertaive Society with a fond hope of purchasing the plot of their choice in the layout to be formed by the OP. It is also not at dispute that these complainants opted to purchase a site measuring 40Ft. x 60Ft. According to the complainants, OP accepted their membership, allotted them the Roll No. and Account No. and they went on paying the sital value right from the year 1992-93 as noted in the above mentioned chart. This fact is also not disputed by the OP. <br /> <br /> 8. Now the grievances of the complainants is that though they paid the entire sital value about 15 years back OP neither completed the said project nor allotted them the site and registered the same, inspite of repeated request and demands made. That is why they are forced to cause the legal notice, copy of the legal notice is produced. Further it is contended that though the complainants have invested their hard earned money they are unable to reap the fruits of their investment. Thus they felt that OP is not going to complete the said project in a nearest future, hence, sought for the refund of the sital value with interest and also prayed for compensation. <br /> <br /> 9. As against this it is contended by the OP that they did acquire the required quantity of lands for the formation of the said layout and paid the money to the land owners collected from the member of the Society like complainants. But thereafter some how the heirs and kith and kin of the land lords raised the civil litigations and the acquisition was also quashed. Thus the money paid to the land lords struck. Under such circumstances OP is unable to complete the said layout. As on today they are not in a possession of the sites free from encumbrance duly approved by the statutory authority. Hence, they are unable to allot the site. It is further contended that as the OP Society being the non-profit organization it is not liable to pay the interest. We do not find any force in this defence. OP has utilized the money paid by the complainants for the acquisition of the lands and accrued the profit. When that is so, they are bound to pay the interest. <br /> <br /> 10. It is further contended by the OP that the complaints are barred by time. Again we do not find force in the said defence, because once when OP accepted the membership of the complainants and collected the sital value till they allot the site or refund the cost of the site due to non completion of the so called project floated complainants will get the recurring cause of action. Though complainant invested their hard earned money they are unable to reap the fruits of their investment for more than 15 years. OP having retained the said huge amount accrued the wrong full gain and thereby caused wrong full loss to the complainants that to for no fault of theirs. <br /> <br /> 11. The evidence of each one of these complainants appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard their sworn testimony. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. As against the unimpeachable evidence of the complainants the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake just to avoid their obligations. The conduct and approach of the OP does not appears to be fair and honest. <br /> <br /> 12. We are satisfied that the complainants are able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Of course complainants claim an exorbitant compensation basing their claim on the value of the site as on today along with the refund of the sital value with interest. There is no bases for the said claim. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case in our view, justice will be met by directing the OP to refund the sital value along with interest and pay a litigation cost. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> The complaints are allowed in part. <br /> <br /> In Complaint No.1188/2009 OP is directed to refund Rs.27,500/- with 9 % interest from 26-08-1992 till realization and pay a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-.<br /> <br /> In Complaint No.1228/2009 OP is directed to refund Rs.73,000/- with 9 % interest from 24-11-1993 till realization and pay a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-.<br /> <br /> In Complaint No.1229/2009 OP is directed to refund Rs.40,000/- with 9 % interest from 12-01-1993 till realization and pay a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-.<br /> <br /> In Complaint No.1230/2009 OP is directed to refund Rs.69,000/- with 9 % interest from 24-11-1993 till realization and pay a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-.<br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> The original order shall be kept in the file of the complaint No.1188/2009 and a copy of it shall be placed in the file of the respective complaints.<br /> <br /> (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 20th day of August 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> NRS<br />