COMPLAINT FILED: 30.08.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 31st OCTOBER 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1931/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.V.N.Anil Kumar,No.12 SBM Colony,Anandnagar,Bangalore – 560024.V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Secretary,The Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society Ltd.,No.100, 11th Cross,6th Main Road, Malleswaram,Bangalore – 560003.Advocate – Sri.Shivaramaiah<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay 18% interest on the sital value of Rs.36,000/- from 1999 to July 2008 and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant become the member of the OP house building co-operative society bearing account No.19947, Roll No.1065 with a fond hope of purchasing a residential sites in the layout “Nagavar” formed by the OP. Complainant paid the sital value of Rs.36,000/- on 30.09.1999. Though he patiently waited for the allotment of the site for more than 12 years he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment. Having fed up with the hostile attitude of the OP he demanded for the refund of the said sital value with interest. OP came forward to pay only Rs.10,000/- towards the interest apart from the principal amount. Complainant is not agreeable for the same. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP they have already refunded Rs.37,600/-, that is Rs.36,000/- principal amount and Rs.1,000/- an interest towards the full and final settlement of the claim. So the present complaint is not maintainable. Of course in the board meeting it was decided to award a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. But complainant is not agreeable for the same. Under such circumstances the claim of the complainant is not maintainable. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. The other allegations are baseless. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. 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:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant become the member of the OP house building co-operative society and opted to purchase a site and OP having collected Rs.36,000/- towards the total sital value on 30.09.1999. It is also not at dispute that though complainant waited patiently for more than 12 years in a fond hope of allotment of a site, he could not get the relief from the OP. Complainant thought that OP is not going to allot a site in a nearest future that is why he sought for the refund of the sital value with interest. OP came forward to pay only Rs.10,000/- as compensation apart from the sital value, which is not agreeable to the complainant. His repeated requests and demands made to OP to pay interest on the said sital value time and again went in futile. Thus he felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP.<br /> <br /> 7. As against this it is contended by the OP that complainant has received Rs.37,600/- inclusive of nominal interest towards the full and final settlement of the claim and addressed a letter in that regard in favour of OP society. We have gone through the agreement for the full and final settlement receipt. It specifically says that complainant is going to accept the said amount subject to payment of nominal interest in the line with other settlement. So under such circumstances it can’t be said that complainant received the entire amount as a full and final settlement as such he is estopped from re agitating the said relief. It is also not at dispute that OP came forward to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation but complainant is not agreeable for the same.<br /> <br /> 8. Complainant invested his hard earned money of Rs.36,000/- in the year 1999. If he would have invested the same in some other purpose or kept it in FD in an nationalized Bank he would have accrued 9% interest from that day. Though OP retained the said huge amount for these 12 years or so failed to pay the interest at least at Bank rate there by accrued a wrongful gain to itself and caused wrongful loss to the complainant that too for no fault of his. This kind of act of OP amounts to deficiency in service. Payment of nominal interest of Rs.1,000/- or thereafter offering a compensation of Rs.10,000/- is not a solution to the mental agony and monetary loss suffered by the complainant. So that defence of the OP does not hold much force.<br /> <br /> 9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view justice will be met by directing the OP to pay interest on Rs.36,000/- at the rate of 9% p.a from 1999 till filing of this complaint. Of course minus Rs.1,000/- interest already paid to the complainant. With these reasons we answer point Nos.1 & 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay 9% p.a interest on Rs.36,000/- from October 1999 till the date of filing of this complaint to the complainant minus Rs.1,000/- interest already paid. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 31st day of October 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> Vln* <br /> <br />