THE KARNATAKA TELECOM DEPARTMENT Vs. UDAYA SHANKAR NEJJUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 21B of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), is to the order dated 15.4.2004 in Appeal No.FA/651/2013 on the file of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (for short "the State Commission). By the impugned order, the State Commission dismissed the Appeal affirming the order of the District Forum. Brief facts set-out in the complaint are that the complainant applied for membership in the Opposite Party society and also applied for 40X60 feet plot in the proposed Sukhibhawa layout to be developed by the Society on Sarjapura Road and paid Rs.4,80,000/- as down payment vide cheque dated 11.8.2006. While so, on 25.11.2006, the Opposite Party had sent a demand notice to the complainant that they are taking action for approval of plan by BMRDA and demanded Rs.2,40,000/- to be paid towards first instalment on or before 15.12.2006. Accordingly, the complainant paid Rs.2,40,000/- vide cheque dated 7.12.2006. Opposite Party sent another demand notice on 4.6.2007 demanding a further sum of Rs.2,40,000/- and accordingly the complainant paid the said amount vide cheque dated 20.6.2007. The complainant submitted that in total he had paid an amount of Rs.9,60,000/- during the period August 2006 to June 2007 and thereafter, paid several visits to the OP's office but was never given right information.

(2.) The Complainant averred that after one year, on 14.4.2008, the Opposite Party Society had sent a letter informing the complainant that for the Sukhibhava project on Sarjapura Road, 75 acres of land had been procured and the matter is pending with BMRDA for issue of NOC. On 29.6.2009, Opposite Party sent another letter informing that BMRDA had granted NOC to the lands vide G.O. dated 28.5.2009. On verification, the complainant found that the said G.O., which the Opposite Party claimed was an NOC from BMRDA, was actually a G.O. according approval to Temporary Interim Master Plan of 5 towns around Bangalore. The complainant pleaded that on 27.11.2010, he had sent a letter by Registered Post requesting for correct information about Sukhibhava project for which the Opposite Party replied on 24.12.2010 giving information about Ayushmanbhava and Arvindhabhava Projects. The Complainant wrote back on 4.1.2011 that he had in fact asked for details of Sukhibhava project but he had received information about some other project. On 15.4.2011, he got issued a legal notice to the society to refund Rs.9,60,000/- within 18% interest and costs. The Opposite Party vide letter dated 3.5.2011 refunded the amount of Rs.9,60,000/- with interest and informed the complainant that Sukhibhava project had been renamed as Arvindhavhava project. Vexed with their attitude, the complainant, who is a retired govt. servant and who had invested part of his pensionary benefits approached the District Forum seeking direction to the Opposite Party to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on Rs.9,60,000/-, which was refunded on 3.5.2011, together with compensation of Rs.25,000/- and costs.

(3.) The Opposite Party filed the reply before the District Forum stating that they had informed the Complainant that Sukhibhava project was renamed as Arvindhabhava and they had already refunded the amount of Rs.9,60,000/- in lieu of the compromise entered into between them and the complainant and the complainant now again asks for interest and compensation. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on their part.