Ajpro City V/S Priti Komal - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/09/1503

Priti Komal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ajpro City - Opp.Party(s)

07 Jul 2009

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/1503

Priti Komal						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Ajpro City						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 07th JANUARY 2010 PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT Nos.1503 & 1504/2009 COMPLAINT NO.1503/09 COMPLAINANT COMPLAINT NO.1504/09 COMPLAINANT OPPOSITE PARTY Smt. Priti Kamal, W/o Shri. Deepak Maharaj, Age 33 years, House No.9, 1st Main, 1st Cross, Rajashree Layout, Munnekolala Marathhalli, Bangalore 560 037. Rep: by Shri Umesh Maharaj, Constituted Attorney vide Power of Attorney dated 10.01.07 R/at House No.9, 1st Main, 1st Cross, Rajashree Layout, Munnekolala Marathhalli. Shri. Prakash Maharaj, S/o Shri. Umesh Maharaj, Age 34 years, House No.9, 1st Main, 1st Cross, Rajashree layout, Munnekolala Marathhalli, Bangalore 560 037. Rep: by Shri Umesh Maharaj, Constituted Attorney vide Power of Attorney dated 22.06.09 R/at House No.9, 1st Main, 1st Cross, Rajashree Layout, Munnekolala Marathhalli, Bangalore 560 037. Advocate: Sri. Rajani Bellubbi V/s. Aipro Citi, Having their office at # 3420, 2nd Floor, Service Road, RPC Layout, Vijay Nagar, II Stage, Bangalore 560 040. Rep: by The Managing Partner, Shri. Adisekhar Reddy. Advocate:Sri. S.M.Anees Ahamed O R D E R SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER These are the complaints filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, by the complainants seeking direction against Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) for refund of amount paid towards purchasing sites along with 18% interest, costs and Rs.50,000/- compensation on an allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 2. The brief averments, made in these complaints are as follows: These complainants attracted with the advertisement offered by the OP who claims to be the developers, to form a layout in the name and style Aipro City Layout at Abbanakuppe Village, Ittamadu Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagarum Taluk, Bangalore Rural District entered, into an Agreement of sale dated 29.12.2006 with the OP to purchase the sites bearing No.140 and 141 in Aipro City Layout measuring 30 X 50 each totally measuring 1500 square feet for total consideration of Rs.7,35,000/- inclusive of water, electricity, drainage system, roads with street lights with a condition to obtain approval from the BMRDA. These complainants paid Rs.2,94,000/- each on 25.12.2006 by way of cheque dated 27.12.2006. Copy of the sale agreement and receipts issued by OP and correspondences are produced. After repeated requests, correspondences OP failed to respond. Even after 2½ years, after agreement of sale when OP failed to register the sites in their favour, complainants felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances they are advised to file these complainants against the OP for the necessary reliefs. For the convenience sake the amount paid to OP, date of payment, Site No, measurement of site etc., Shown in the form of a table below: Sl. No. Complaint No. Date of Payment Amount Paid Site No. Site Measure-ment Demand Letter 1 1503/09 29.12.06 Rs.2,94,000/- 140 30 X 50 11.08.08 2 1504/09 29.12.06 Rs.2,94,000/- 141 30 X 50 12.02.09 3. On appearance, OP filed the version mainly contending that at the time of registration of final conveyance balance amount shall be paid and actual allotment of a site shall be subject to approval from BMRDA, in consensus of such an undertaking by these complainants only, OP accepted the amount and is updating the facts and development and is desirous of allotting sites within the said layout to these complainants with clear title. Complainants are well aware of the fact that Government has not taken any action by permitting development across the Bidadi, matter is pending before Honble High Court of Karnataka. Unfortunately due to changes in the statutory norms approval process is delayed which is beyond the control of OP. The services of the OP will not fall under provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Complainants are defaulters. For breach of contract complainants have to seek remedy in Civil Court and prayed for dismissal of the complaints with costs. 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, each one of these complainants have filed their affidavit evidence through their power of attorney holders and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. Then the arguments were heard. 5. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in these complaints are as under: Point No.1:- Whether the complainants have proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No.2:- If so, whether the complainants are entitled for the relief now claimed? Point No.3:- To what Order? 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: Point No.1:- In Affirmative. Point No.2:- Affirmative in part. Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 7. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainants entered into agreement of sale dated 29.12.2006 with the OP to purchase sites bearing No.140 and 141 in Aipro City Layout measuring 30 X 50 each totally measuring 1500 Sq feet for total consideration of Rs.7,35,000/- with a condition to obtain approval plan from the BMRDA. It is also not at dispute that these complainants paid Rs.2,94,000/- each by way of cheque dated 25.12.2009. The copy of the agreement, a correspondences and receipts issued by OP are produced to substantiate the said facts. Now the main grievances of these complainants is that though OP collected advance amount of Rs.2,94,000/- from each of these complainants towards the cost of the site failed to obtain approval from BMRDA and to develop the layout as per the terms of the agreement of sale dated 29.12.2006. 8. As against the evidence of these complainants the defence of the OP that the complainants are aware of the fact that Government has not taken any action by permitting development across the Bidadi. Due to changes in the statutory norms approval process is delayed which is beyond the control of OP cannot be overlooked. The documents in support of its contentions are produced. Further OP contends that matter is pending before Honble High Court of Karnataka. But failed to produce any supporting evidence. Though OP is aware of the facts that it cannot go on with the developmental work, it could have fairly returned the amount to these complainants. OP accrued wrongful gain to self and caused wrongful loss to these complainants that too for no fault of theirs. Hence we are satisfied that complainants are able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances these complainants are entitled for refund of whatever amount they have paid to OP along with 12% interest p.a. and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. With these observations we answer point No.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R These complaints are allowed. 1. In complaint No.1503/2009 OP is directed to refund Rs.2,94,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 01.01.2007 till realization along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. 2. In complaint No.1504/2009 OP is directed to refund Rs.2,94,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from 01.01.2007 till realization along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication. Send the copy of this order to both the parties free of cost. This original order shall be kept in the file of the complaint No.1503/2009 and a copy of it shall be placed in other connected file. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 07th day of January 2010) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Snm:

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 07th JANUARY 2010 PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT Nos.1503 & 1504/2009 COMPLAINT NO.1503/09 COMPLAINANT COMPLAINT NO.1504/09 COMPLAINANT OPPOSITE PARTY Smt. Priti Kamal, W/o Shri. Deepak Maharaj, Age 33 years, House No.9, 1st Main, 1st Cross, Rajashree Layout, Munnekolala Marathhalli, Bangalore 560 037. Rep: by Shri Umesh Maharaj, Constituted Attorney vide Power of Attorney dated 10.01.07 R/at House No.9, 1st Main, 1st Cross, Rajashree Layout, Munnekolala Marathhalli. Shri. Prakash Maharaj, S/o Shri. Umesh Maharaj, Age 34 years, House No.9, 1st Main, 1st Cross, Rajashree layout, Munnekolala Marathhalli, Bangalore 560 037. Rep: by Shri Umesh Maharaj, Constituted Attorney vide Power of Attorney dated 22.06.09 R/at House No.9, 1st Main, 1st Cross, Rajashree Layout, Munnekolala Marathhalli, Bangalore 560 037. Advocate: Sri. Rajani Bellubbi V/s. Aipro Citi, Having their office at # 3420, 2nd Floor, Service Road, RPC Layout, Vijay Nagar, II Stage, Bangalore 560 040. Rep: by The Managing Partner, Shri. Adisekhar Reddy. Advocate:Sri. S.M.Anees Ahamed O R D E R SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER These are the complaints filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, by the complainants seeking direction against Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) for refund of amount paid towards purchasing sites along with 18% interest, costs and Rs.50,000/- compensation on an allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 2. The brief averments, made in these complaints are as follows: These complainants attracted with the advertisement offered by the OP who claims to be the developers, to form a layout in the name and style Aipro City Layout at Abbanakuppe Village, Ittamadu Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagarum Taluk, Bangalore Rural District entered, into an Agreement of sale dated 29.12.2006 with the OP to purchase the sites bearing No.140 and 141 in Aipro City Layout measuring 30 X 50 each totally measuring 1500 square feet for total consideration of Rs.7,35,000/- inclusive of water, electricity, drainage system, roads with street lights with a condition to obtain approval from the BMRDA. These complainants paid Rs.2,94,000/- each on 25.12.2006 by way of cheque dated 27.12.2006. Copy of the sale agreement and receipts issued by OP and correspondences are produced. After repeated requests, correspondences OP failed to respond. Even after 2½ years, after agreement of sale when OP failed to register the sites in their favour, complainants felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances they are advised to file these complainants against the OP for the necessary reliefs. For the convenience sake the amount paid to OP, date of payment, Site No, measurement of site etc., Shown in the form of a table below: Sl. No. Complaint No. Date of Payment Amount Paid Site No. Site Measure-ment Demand Letter 1 1503/09 29.12.06 Rs.2,94,000/- 140 30 X 50 11.08.08 2 1504/09 29.12.06 Rs.2,94,000/- 141 30 X 50 12.02.09 3. On appearance, OP filed the version mainly contending that at the time of registration of final conveyance balance amount shall be paid and actual allotment of a site shall be subject to approval from BMRDA, in consensus of such an undertaking by these complainants only, OP accepted the amount and is updating the facts and development and is desirous of allotting sites within the said layout to these complainants with clear title. Complainants are well aware of the fact that Government has not taken any action by permitting development across the Bidadi, matter is pending before Honble High Court of Karnataka. Unfortunately due to changes in the statutory norms approval process is delayed which is beyond the control of OP. The services of the OP will not fall under provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Complainants are defaulters. For breach of contract complainants have to seek remedy in Civil Court and prayed for dismissal of the complaints with costs. 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, each one of these complainants have filed their affidavit evidence through their power of attorney holders and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. Then the arguments were heard. 5. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in these complaints are as under: Point No.1:- Whether the complainants have proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No.2:- If so, whether the complainants are entitled for the relief now claimed? Point No.3:- To what Order? 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: Point No.1:- In Affirmative. Point No.2:- Affirmative in part. Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 7. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainants entered into agreement of sale dated 29.12.2006 with the OP to purchase sites bearing No.140 and 141 in Aipro City Layout measuring 30 X 50 each totally measuring 1500 Sq feet for total consideration of Rs.7,35,000/- with a condition to obtain approval plan from the BMRDA. It is also not at dispute that these complainants paid Rs.2,94,000/- each by way of cheque dated 25.12.2009. The copy of the agreement, a correspondences and receipts issued by OP are produced to substantiate the said facts. Now the main grievances of these complainants is that though OP collected advance amount of Rs.2,94,000/- from each of these complainants towards the cost of the site failed to obtain approval from BMRDA and to develop the layout as per the terms of the agreement of sale dated 29.12.2006. 8. As against the evidence of these complainants the defence of the OP that the complainants are aware of the fact that Government has not taken any action by permitting development across the Bidadi. Due to changes in the statutory norms approval process is delayed which is beyond the control of OP cannot be overlooked. The documents in support of its contentions are produced. Further OP contends that matter is pending before Honble High Court of Karnataka. But failed to produce any supporting evidence. Though OP is aware of the facts that it cannot go on with the developmental work, it could have fairly returned the amount to these complainants. OP accrued wrongful gain to self and caused wrongful loss to these complainants that too for no fault of theirs. Hence we are satisfied that complainants are able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances these complainants are entitled for refund of whatever amount they have paid to OP along with 12% interest p.a. and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. With these observations we answer point No.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R These complaints are allowed. 1. In complaint No.1503/2009 OP is directed to refund Rs.2,94,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 01.01.2007 till realization along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. 2. In complaint No.1504/2009 OP is directed to refund Rs.2,94,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from 01.01.2007 till realization along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication. Send the copy of this order to both the parties free of cost. This original order shall be kept in the file of the complaint No.1503/2009 and a copy of it shall be placed in other connected file. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 07th day of January 2010) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Snm: