COMPLAINT FILED: 26.10.2009<br /> DISPOSED ON: 23.07.2010<br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 23rd JULY 2010<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2495/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Dr. Deepa Rawal,<br /> W/o. Sandeep Rawal,<br /> Aged about 39 years,<br /> Residing at No.B.M-175 West,<br /> Shalimar Bagh,<br /> Delhi-110 088.<br /> <br /> Advocte : V. Ganga Bai<br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Aishwarya Projects <br /> 717, Poorna Shashi Complex,<br /> 2nd Floor, <br /> Modi Hospital Road,<br /> 2nd Stage, <br /> W.C. Road,<br /> Basaweshwaranagar,<br /> Bangalore.<br /> <br /> 2. Royal County<br /> 604, Vaishnavi Paradise,<br /> Sangam Circle, <br /> 8th Block, Jayanagar,<br /> Bangalore.<br /> <br /> Advocate : Dhananjaya C.P. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction against the Opposite Parties (herein after called as O.P) to refund Rs.3,40,000/- with interest at 12% p.a and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards costs and compensation on the allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> 2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows:<br /> <br /> Complainant being lured away with the offer made by the OP-2 in the daily news paper booked residential Plot No.1042 with OP-2 in layout in the name and style M/s. Royal County at Huyilala Village, Yelavala Hobli, Mysore Taluk and District. For a total sale consideration of Rs. 10,20.000/- at the rate of 425 per Sq.fts. Complainant entered into an agreement of sale dt: 10.03.2007 with the OP-2 and paid Rs.3,40,000/- towards advance sale consideration by way of cheque dt:05.03.2007. OP-1 sister concern of OP-2, took over OP-2. OPs agreed to allot the plot within six months from the date of approval from Mysore Urban development authority (MUDA). Complainant has to pay the balance amount within one month from the date of MUDA approval. After Six months complainant approached OP. OP promised that allotment will take further 4-6 months if OP failed to allot by March 2008 OP will pay interest at the rate of 5% per month from the date of booking. When complainant did not receive any information on 15.05.2008 he made requisition for refund of amount. Inspite of receipt of the said requisition there was no response from OP. Hence complainant got issued reminders on 21.07.2008, 29.07.2008 on 07.08.2008. Complainant personally approached OP. after waiting for entire day OP assured that amount will be refunded soon along with interest. Copies of the correspondence are produced. When OP failed to refund the amount complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstance he is advised to file this complaint for the necessary relief’s.<br /> <br /> 3. On appearance OP filed version admitting the membership of the complainant and receipt of advance amount of Rs.3,40,000/- towards purchase of plot No.1402 at ‘Royal County’ layout as per the agreement dt:10.03.2008. Further agreed to receive the balance amount within one month from the date of approval and further agreed to register sale deed within six months from the date of approval from MUDA. OP denied that it agreed to pay interest at 5% P.M from the date of booking. It is contended by the OP that it had informed the complainant that the project was delayed because of not getting the conversion order from the concerned authority due to global economic crisis and due to present financial crisis and global depreciation. Further it is contended by the OP that it had already got the conversion orders and sanctioned plans and waiting for the release order. OP will execute the registered sale deed by the end of January 2010. Among other grounds OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, complainant filed her affidavit evidence and produced the correspondence and agreement of sale. On behalf of OPs Mr.V.Bhaskar Reddy partner of OP filed his affidavit evidence and produced the copy of the approval order and sanctioned plan. Heard the arguments on complainant side, taken as heard from OP side.<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 the above points are:<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. At the out set it is not at dispute that the complainant approached the OP who are engaged in forming of layout in the name and Style M/s. royal County and intended to purchase plot No. 1402 situated at Royal country layout measuring (40x60) 2400 Sq.fts. for a total sale consideration of Rs.10,20,000/-. Accordingly complainant entered into an agreement of sale dt: 10.03.2007 with OP and paid Rs.3,40,000/- by way of cheque dt: 05.03.2007 towards advance sale consideration OP agreed to receive balance consideration within one month from the date of approval from MUDA and register the sale deed infavour of the complainant. Copy of the agreement of sale is produced. Inspite of repeated requests when OP failed to refund the amount complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The correspondence dt: 15.05.08, 21.07.08, 29.07.08 and 07.08.2008 are produced. OP has endorsement all the correspondences and assured the complainant that amount will be refunded within 10 to 15 days but failed to refund the same.<br /> <br /> 8. The main defence of the OP is that the previous government had banned land conversion and layout development from July 2007. Due to not getting the conversion order from the concerned authority due to global economic crisis and present financial crisis the project was delayed. Now OP has got conversion order and sanctioned plans and waiting for the release order. OP will execute sale deed by the end of January 2010. That means without obtaining approval conversion order and sanctioned plan from the statutory authorities OP has accepted the advance amount from the complainant and entered into agreement to sell. Till date OP has not come forward to execute the sale deed. This act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service on its part. OP is still waiting for release of the order. When OP was aware of the fact that it cannot execute the sale deed it could have fairly refunded the amount to the complainant. Inspite of repeated requests and correspondences OP failed to refund the amount for more than 3 years. This act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service on the part the OP. The claim of the complainant is only for refund of amount with interest and compensation and not for registration of sale deed. Under the circumstances we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for refund of amount with interest at 9% P.A and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OPs are directed to refund Rs.3,40,000/- together with interest at 9% P.A from 05.03.2007 to till the date of payment along with 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 /> (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 23rd day of July 2010.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> gm <br /> <br /> <br />