COMPLAINT FILED: 25-08-2009 <br /> DISPOSED ON: 20-04-2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 20TH APRIL 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT :-SRI. B.S.REDDY PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2052/2009<br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Kum.Sinduhu Rani<br /> D/o. Sri.A.R.Venakteshappa<br /> Aged about 22 Years,<br /> R/at,No.356, I Floor, <br /> M.S.Ramaiah Road,<br /> Mathikere, Bangalore – 560054.<br /> <br /> Advocate – Sri.B.Keshava Murthy<br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1.M/s.AISHVARYAA DOWNTOWN<br /> # 119/18, 3rd Floor, 80 Feet Road, Siddaiah Puranik Road, <br /> Near Pavitra Paradise, Basaveshwaranagar,<br /> Bangalore – 560079.<br /> Represented by its <br /> Managing Partner Mr.L.F.Patil S/o.late Fakir Gouda Patil, <br /> <br /> 2.Mr.Srinivasa A.Naidu, Partner,<br /> M/s.AISHVARYAA DOWNTOWN<br /> # 119/18, 3rd Floor, 80 Feet Road, Siddaiah Puranik Road, <br /> Near Pavitra Paradise, <br /> Basaveshwaranagar,<br /> Bangalore – 560079.<br /> Advocate – Sri.Purushotam. G<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> The complainant filed this complaint u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act of 1986 seeking direction against Opposite Parties (herein after called as OP) to refund an amount of Rs.1,65,000/- with interest at 24% p.a. and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with litigation cost of Rs.25,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. <br /> <br /> The case of the complainant to be stated in brief is that:-<br /> <br /> 2. OP-1 is a partnership firm engaged in the development of land and formation of residential layout. OP-2 and Mr.L.F.Patil are the Managing Partner of the said firm. The complainant being lured by the hand bills, literature in Magazine and publication in the daily news paper of the OPs that residential layout with origin greenery in the surrounding will be formed, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,65,000/- towards part of sale consideration for purchasing the site No.107 by entering an agreement dated 01-03-2008. The balance consideration of Rs.2,49,000/- was agreed to be received by OP later. It was mutually agreed that entire sale transaction has to be completed within a period of three months. OP has undertaken to repay advance amount with 3% interest per month on the advance amount; in the event of failure to form the residential layout and provide the facilities and amenities within a period of 6 months. Even though OP has received substantial sale consideration, it does not made any efforts in the formation of layout. On enquiry, OP revealed that still it has to purchase the lands and no approval has been taken from the competent authority and further they have no real intention to develop the layout as agreed. OP has failed to provide the services as promised, leading to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The complainant got issued legal notice on 07-08-2009 demanding to refund advance amount with interest. OP has not complied with the demand. Hence the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. On appearance OPs filed version admitting that complainant has entered into an agreement to purchase site bearing No.107 and has paid an amount of Rs.1,65,000/- as part of sale consideration on 01-03-2008. It is stated that OP has acquired lands for formation of layout and already initiated process of conversion from agricultural to non agricultural. The government has prohibited conversion of lands in the said villages for the temporary period. Such prohibition recently lifted by the government. OP immediately applied for conversion of lands. Complainant has approached this court with malafide intention to harass OP by filing complaint without any cause of action. OP has agreed to register sale deed in favour of complainant within 30 days from the date of approval of layout plan by the planning authority as per clause 4 of the agreement of sale. The recession effect in the world made very impact on the real estate business in India. Therefore the complainant has approached this Forum without any cause.<br /> <br /> 4. In order to substantiate complaint averments, complainant filed affidavit evidence and produced documents. OP-2 filed affidavit in support of defence version. Both parties filed written arguments. <br /> <br /> 5. Points that arise for our consideration are:-<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 record our findings on the above points as:-<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 7. It is not in dispute that the complainant entered into an agreement with OP for purchasing a site No.107 and paid an advance consideration of Rs.1,65,000/- on 01-03-2008. The copy of the agreement deed produced reveals that OP has received an amount of Rs.1,65,000/- towards the part of the sale consideration and balance consideration of Rs.2,49,000/- was agreed to be paid within one month from the date of approval of layout plan. OP has admitted the fact that the lands purchased for formation of the layout are not converted from the agricultural purpose to non-agricultural purposes. Layout plan has not yet been approved by the planning authority. Thus it becomes clear that OP without making the lands suitable for formation of the layout and without forming the layout made the complainant to pay part payment of Rs.1,65,000/- as advance sale consideration in respect of the plot No.107. It is strange enough to note that without conversion of lands and forming layout this OP has given site No.107 on paper for making this complainant to enter into an agreement to pay the advance amount. Even now OP has not converted the lands and no layout plan has been approved. The complainant cannot be made wait to indefinitely for getting the lands converted and formation of layout by OP. Inspite of legal notice issued demanding the advance amount paid, OP has not complied with the demand. OP by retaining the amount has gained wrongfully itself and caused wrongful loss to the complainant. It would have been fair enough on the part of the OP to refund the amount immediately when OP came to know, ban on conversion of lands. OP was not justified in retaining the amount inspite of demanding by the complainant to refund the same. The act on the part of the OP in not refunding the amount amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The complainant is entitled for the relief of refund of the amount with interest at 15% p.a. with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. Awarding interest on the advance amount itself is to be treated as compensation for with holding the amount on the part of the OP. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed.<br /> <br /> OPs are directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,65,000/- with interest at 15% p.a. from 01-03-2008 till the date of realization and to pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.<br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication. <br /> <br /> Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs. <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 20th day of April 2010.) <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> NRS<br /> <br />