State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Megacity(Bangalore) vs Sri.Yogesh Ullal on 16 September, 2011
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. DATED: 16/09/2011 PRESENT HONBLE JUSTICE MR.K. RAMANNA : PRESIDENT SRI. A.M. BENNUR : MEMBER SMT. RAMA ANANTH : MEMBER Appeal No. 397/2011 & 398/2011 M/s Megacity ( Bangalore) Developers and Builders, No.7,5th Cross,Chandraloka Apartments,Gandhinagar,Bangalore-560009, By its Managing Director. (Appellant is same in both the appeals) (By Shri/Smt R S Ravi) .. Opposite Party before the DF .....Appellant/s -Versus- Appeal No. 397/2011 Smt.Indrayani B.S, W/o Ananda Konchady, Aged about 46 years, R/at No.140, 9th Cross, Canara bank Layout, Kodigehalli, Vidyaranyapura Post, Bangalore-97. . Complainant before the DF .....Respondent/s Appeal No. 397/2011 Sri.Yogesh Ullal W/o Ananda Konchady, C/o Babitha Sheka Konaje, rep:by his holder Sri Ananda Konchady, S/o Poovappa Maistry, Aged about 53 years, R/at No.140, aged About 42 years, R/at No.A-7,302, Kush Kuter, Yashasvinagar,Dalkum Nagar,Thane West. W/o Ananda Konchady, Aged about 46 years, R/at No.140,9th Cross, Canara bank Layout, Kodigehalli, Vidyaranyapura Post, Bangalore-97. (By Shri/Smt. S. Rajashekar in both the appeals) . Complainant before the DF .....Respondent/s ORDER
HONBLE JUSTICE K.RAMANNA : PRESIDENT These two appeals are filed by the appellant / OP MEGACITY (BANGALORE) DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED represented by its Managing Director against the common order dated 20-1-2011 passed by the DF, Bangalore Urban in complaint Nos.2900 and 2901 of 2009 directing the appellant / OP herein to refund a sum of Rs.1,32,000/- and Rs.1,76,550/- to the complainants respectively with interest at 18% pa from 12.1.2002 till realization and also to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to each of the complainants with costs of Rs.3000/- and directed the appellant to comply with the order within a period of four weeks. Therefore, the OP has come up with this appeal on various grounds.
2. Since the facts in these cases are similar and identical and the facts involved in these cases are one and the same both these appeals have taken up together heard and being disposed of by this common order.
3. The parties in these proceedings are referred to as to their rankings before the District Forum.
4. In pursuance of the notice issued to the complainants, the complainants have appeared through a counsel and resisted the appeals contending that the impugned order does not suffer from factual or legal infirmity and it is a well reasoned order and therefore the same does not require any interference. Therefore, the complainants have prayed for dismissal of the appeals filed by the OP.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/ OP and the respondents / complainants. The point that arises for our consideration is that whether the District Forum is justified in awarding compensation in the aforesaid cases directing them to refund the amount deposited together with interest at 18% pa and also compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in each case.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the DF has lost sight in allowing the complaints filed by the respondents by awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and also awarding interest at the rate of 18% pa on the amount deposited by them which is against the settled principles of law.
7. It is further argued that awarding huge rate of interest and also awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- is contrary to the judgment passed by the Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 2004 (5) SCC 65 and AIR 2000 SC 2003 and further contended that awarding costs of Rs.3000/- towards litigation expenses without assigning any reasons.
8. The OP is stated to be a developer and builder has taken the amount from the complainants as mentioned in the impugned order by entering into a sale agreement.
Though the amounts received by the OP in the year 1996 to the extent of Rs.1,32,000/- from the complainant in C.No.2900/09 and Rs.34,600/- towards development charges. Likewise the very OP has taken a sum of Rs.1,76,550/- from the respondent / complainant in C.No.2901/09 as per the agreement entered into apart from other expenses from the complainants in both the cases. Rs.48,535/- collected towards registration charges as well as development charges.
9. The complainants in both the cases have paid huge amount with fond hope that they will get the site as mentioned in their application but the OP by showing some reasons like the various authorities like the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, BMRDA, BMICAPA to secure the opinion. When they took up the project there was no legal hurdle for the formation of the layout but after applying for conversion, the OP came to know that the land is notified by KIADB for the purpose of Industrial development.
It is the duty of the builder cum developer to verify and confirm with the Government whether the Government had any intention to acquire the land for the purpose of developmental works or otherwise. So, after collecting huge amount from the intending site purchasers they move for getting permission from various authorities. The OP ought to have been worked out much prior to give vide publication to the general public who intends to purchase the site. Therefore, in our opinion the OP has committed deficiency in service. On the other hand, the complainants have paid their hard earned savings deposited the huge amount with the Ops way back in the year 1996 for the purpose of getting the sites.
10. Therefore, the District Forum is right in awarding interest at the rate of 18% per annum keeping in mind the law laid down by the Apex Court as well as the National Commission in various cases.
11. It is seen that in paragraph 2 of the impugned order, it is specifically mentioned that the respondent who is the complainant in Complaint No.2900/09 has become a member of OP by entering into a sale agreement dated 11.11.1996 for allotment of a site measuring 40 x 60 ft for the sale consideration amount of Rs.1,32,000/-. The OP also collected the sum of Rs.36400/- towards development charges in all Rs.1,68,000/-. Likewise the complainant in C.No.2901/09 has paid Rs.1,76,550/- and Rs.48,535/- to the OP for the site measuring 53.5 x 60 ft in all Rs.2,25,085/-.
12. It is well settled law while refunding the amount deposited by the customers like the complainants in both the cases who have deposited hard earned money with an intention to get the site so that in the fag end of their life they may have their own house / shelter but their ambition went futile. But the OP kept quite for more than 15 years. But the DF utterly failed to consider the amount collected by the OP towards development charges and registration charges from the complainants while passing the impugned order though the complainants are legally entitled to.
13. Therefore considering the law lay down by the National Commission awarding both interest and compensation amounts to imposing penalty. The District Forum ought to have been awarded either the interest or the compensation. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Forum is to be modified only to the extent of awarding of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in each case is concerned.
In the result, we pass the following:
O R D E R Appeals are allowed. The impugned order passed by the District Forum in complaint Nos.2900/09 and 2901/09 is hereby modified by setting aside the compensation portion is concerned in each case. In all other aspects the order of the District Forum shall kept undisturbed.
The amount deposited by the appellant in these appeals shall be transferred to the District Forum to enable the DF to pay the same to the complainants in each case after due notice to them.
The original of this order is kept in A.No.2900/09 and a copy of it shall be placed in A.No.2901/09.
The parties are directed to bear their own costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER Nrr**