<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 29.04.2009: <br /> DISPOSED ON: 29.08.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 29TH AUGUST 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M.BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.968/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Ms.PoojalaxmiD/o. Sri.Mahnedra Singh,R/at 2277/2ABC Krishna Singhiant, M.G.Road,Channapatna-571 501.Advocate – Sri.B.K.NagarajaV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Sri. Yogeshwara.C.P.Managing director,M/s.Megacity (Bangalore) Developers & Builders Ltd.,Mega Tower, No.120, K.H.Road (Double Road)Bangalore – 560 027.Advocate – Sri.R.Tharesh<br /> <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 execute the registered sale deed with respect to the site allotted to her and pay a compensation in the alternative refund total sital value with interest 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 /> 2. Complainant being lured away with the publicity given by the OP who claims to be a developer and builders of residential layout consisting of sites of various dimensions in and around Bangalore thought of becoming member of the project floated by the OP in the name and style Vajragiri Township and opted to purchase a site measuring 30’ x 40’. OP accepted her membership and allotted her a site bearing No.370 and executed an agreement to sale on 22-07-2000. Complainant paid in all Rs.48,000/- towards the cost of the site. Though complainant was ready to bear the stamp duty and registration charges OP failed to complete the said project and failed to register the site. Her repeated request and demands made to OP by addressing a letter causing the notice went in futile. Thus she felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 3. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP they did acquire the required quantity of land for the formation of the said layout. But the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural did not accord the sanction for conversion of the agricultural land into non-agricultural purpose. In addition to that BMRDA and BMICAPA intervened in the land acquired by the OP for the purpose of the infrastructure Corridor Area Planning. Under such circumstances OP is unable to complete the said project. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Complaint is barred by time. Complainant has paid only Rs.47,760/-. In addition to that the landlords who sold lands to OP, raised the civil litigation through some third party. A suit OS No.726/07 is pending before the Ramanagara Civil Judge court. Under such circumstances OP’s hands are tied in completion of the said project. On these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the 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 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 /> 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 /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 7. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant become the member of the project floated by the OP in the name and style Vajragiri Township and intended to purchase a site measuring 30’ x 40’. OP accepted her membership and allotted her site bearing No.370. An agreement to sale came to be executed on 22-07-2000. Towards the cost of the site complainant paid Rs.48,000/- to OP. The copy of the agreement to sale is produced. Now it is the grievances of the complainant that though she patiently waited for the registration of the said site and also willing to pay registration and stamp duty charges, inspite of her repeated request and demands OP failed to register a site and put her in possessionof the same. Hence she felt deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> 8. The evidence of the complainant which finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents. appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard her sworn testimony. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake. According to OP due to legal hurdles they are unable to complete the said project in time.<br /> <br /> 9. It is further contended by the OP that they did acquire required quantity of agricultural land for the formation of the said layout. Because of the intervention of the BMRDA and BMICAPA and so also as the Deputy Commissioner of Bangalore Rural district did not issued no objection certificate for the conversion of the agricultural land into non-agriculture purpose, they are unable to complete the project. OP has not completed the said project even though they received entire sital value from the complainant in the year 2000. <br /> <br /> 10. Complainant invested her hard earned money to purchase a site of her choice unfortunately she is unable to reap the fruits of her investment. It is all because of the carelessness and negligence on the part of the OP. Of course the fact that some of the land owners and their representative have raised civil litigation and a civil suit is pending before the civil judge Ramanagar is not at dispute. Complainant has not denied the fact of the same legal hurdles. When that is so it appears in a nearest future OP is not going to complete the said project. We cannot direct the complainant keep waiting for the registration of the site indefinitely. 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 with interest.<br /> <br /> 11. Of course OP has contended that the complaint is barred by time. We find no force in the said defence for the simple reasons that when OP has accepted the membership of the complainant allotted her a site collected the sital value in the year 2000 they did not complete the project in time and register the site free from encumbrance in favour of the complainant, hence complainant will get a recurring cause of action. The other defence of the OP appears to be baseless. <br /> <br /> 12. We are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. OP having retained the said amount without registering the site and putting the complainant in possession of the site for all these years accrued wrongful gain to self and caused wrongful loss to the complainant that too for no fault of her. For these reasons we find complainant deserves the alternative relief of refund of sital value. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> Complaint is allowed in part.<br /> <br /> OP is directed to refund Rs.48,000/- with 12% interest from August’2000 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 /> <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 29th day of August 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> nrs <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />