Date of Filing:14.03.2016

Date of Disposal:31.05.2023

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BENGALURU

1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027.

ORDER

SRI RAMACHANDRA.M.S,PRESIDENT

1. The complainants files a complaint with this Commission under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 with a direction to OP to refund Rs.2,90,000/- to complainant No.1 and Rs.6,00,000/- to complainant No.2 along with interest at 18% p.a.  and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- each and such other reliefs.

2.  The following are the complaint's key facts:

This is the case of the complainants thatthe OP is registered Housing Society in the name of Karnataka State NamadevaSimpiSamaja (R), which was established for the welfare and benefit of NamadevaSimpi community people. The complainants are the members of the said society and they intends to purchase sites in the said society. The complainants applied for sites by filing necessary application. Complainant No.1 has paid Rs.2,90,000/- by way of cheque on 28.06.2008 to the OP and complainant No.2 has also paid a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- on 03.07.2008, Rs.50,000/- on 10.07.2008, Rs.1,85,000/- on 01.08.2008 Rs.1,40,000/- on 03.07.2008 and Rs.15,000/- on 10.07.2008.The copies of bank statements are produced as document no.2 &3. Despite of receipt of said amount, the OP has neitherallotted the sites nor informed the complainants regarding status of the formation of the layout. When even the complainants approached the OP society, the OP has assigned lame reasons and by postponing the allotment of sites in favour of the complainants. Despite of several approaches when the complainants have failed to get allotment of the sites from the OP society. The complainants got issued legal notice, wherein they called upon OP society either to allot the sites or refund the sum along with interest. The Legal notice which is sent by the complainants was untenably replied by the OP society. Aggrieved by the act of the OP society, complainants have forced to lodge the present complaint in order to get the relief of refund of the said deposit along with interest and other reliefs as prayed in the complaint.

3. Notice to OP-duly served, represented by counsel and filed written version and affidavit in support of their contention.

4. The complainant filed chief-examination affidavit along with relevant in support of his contention.

5. Heard arguments. The matter is reserved for order.

6. The points that arise for our consideration are;

1. Whether the Complainant prove that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP as alleged in the complaint and thereby prove that he is entitle for the relief sought?

2. What order?

7. The findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1                :       Partly in affirmative

Point No.2                :       As per final order

REASONS

8. POINT NO.1:-That the OP is registered Housing Society in the name of Karnataka State NamadevaSimpiSamaja (R), which was established for the welfare and benefit of NamadevaSimpi community people. The complainants are the members of the said society and they intends to purchase sites in the said society. The complainants applied for sites by filing necessary application. Complainant No.1 has paid Rs.2,90,000/- by way of cheque on 28.06.2008 to the OP and complainant No.2 has also paid to OP a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- on 03.07.2008, Rs.50,000/- on 10.07.2008, Rs.1,85,000/- on 01.08.2008 Rs.1,40,000/- on 03.07.2008 and Rs.15,000/- on 10.07.2008(Total sum of  Rs.6,00,000/)-.  The copies of bank statements are produced as document no.2 &3. Despite of receipt of said amount the OP has neither  allotted the sites nor informed the complainants regarding status of the formation of the layout. When even the complainants approached the OP society, the OP has assigned lame reasons and by postponing the allotment of sites in favour of the complainants. Despite of several approaches when the complainants have failed to get allotment of the sites from the OP society. The complainants got issued legal notice, wherein they called upon OP society either to allot the sites or refund the sum along with interest. The Legal notice which is sent by the complainants was untenably replied by the OP society. Aggrieved by the act of the OP society, complainants have forced to lodge the present complaint in order to get the relief of refund of the said deposit along with interest and other reliefs as prayed in the complaint.

9. The OP represented by counsel filed detailed version by denying entire complaint allegations and also any deficient service on their part. The contention of OP is that as formation and development work of the layout is handed over to the one of the  developer company. Since there is delay in the work of the said developer, the OP was unable to hand over the possession of the said sites as assured and agreed. The OP has also  taken up several contentions that there is a Memorandum ofUnderstanding (MoU) executed between the parties and  it is also contended that the complainants have initiated proceedings before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and Hon’ble High Court also passed an order on merits of the petition, all these facts agitate in several statements. In view of the above, the OP contended that the initiation of the present complaint is not maintainable in view of the above proceeding which took between the parties before  the Hon’ble High court of Karnataka. By contending that they pray for dismissal of the complaint as not maintainable.

10. The complainant No.1 & 2 have  filed their chief examination affidavits along with several documents in support of their pleadings. The complainant no.1 & 2 have produced documents to show that they have made payment of Rs.2,90,000/- and Rs.6,00,000/- respectively and the bank statement of the complainant No.1 & 2 clearly establish that they  have already made payment to the OP society. Despite of receipt of the said amount from complainant No.1 & 2 the OP society has not only delayed in completion of formation of layout and also there is inordinate delay in handing over the possession of he said sites as agreed between them.

11. On perusal of these documents which are produced as annexures from the complainants side and by appreciating the complaint facts and averments the Commission has come to the conclusion that the OP society has failed to comply the terms and OP society have miserably failed to hand over the possession of the sites to the complainant No.1  & 2. By defaulting the same the OP has committed deficiency in service on the part during the course of service to the complainants. Under such circumstances, the OP is held liable to refund the deposit amount along with other reliefs which is granted in the complaint. Accordingly, the Point No.1 we answer partly in affirmative.

12. POINT NO.2:- In the result, we passed the following:

                             ORDER

1. The complaint filed by the complainants is hereby allowed.
2. The OP is directed to refund a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- and Rs.6,00,000/- respectively to the complainant No.1 & 2  along with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the last date of payment till  payment is made to the complainants.
3. The OP is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- each to complainant No.1 & 2 and Rs.5,000/- each towards cost of proceedings to complainant no.1 & 2. If OP fails to comply the order within 45 days from the date of order, compensation amount and cost of litigation shall  carry interest at 6% p.a. for non-compliance of the order.
4. Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties. 

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Commission on 31^stMay 2023)

(RAMACHANDRA M.S.)

PRESIDENT

(NANDINI H KUMBHAR)          (CHANDRASHEKAR S.NOOLA)       

 MEMBER                                  MEMBER

Witness examined on behalf of the complainant by way of affidavit:

Sri Satish.M-who being thecomplainantNo.1, Sri Sachindeve.D.Haval-Who being the complainant No.2

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witness examined on behalf of the OP -1&2 by way of affidavit:Sri N.M.Suresh- Who being OP-2

Documents produced by the OP-1&2:

(RAMACHANDRA M.S.)

PRESIDENT

(NANDINI H KUMBHAR)          (CHANDRASHEKAR S.NOOLA)

         MEMBER                                     MEMBER

SKA*