COMPLAINT FILED: 31.03.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 5TH AUGUST 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M.BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.282/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT NO.1COMPLAINANT NO.2 Mr.P.Anand KumarS/o.Mr.A.Panchapagesan,Aged about 42 Years,Mrs.Sushila AnandW/o.Mr.P.Anand Kumar,Aged about 41 years,Both are R/at. No.603-F(Red Wood), Raheja Residency Apartments,Kormangala, 3rd Block, Near BDA Complex,Bangalore – 560 034.Advocate – Sri.S.M.ManjunathV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY M/s. BlueValley Properties Private Limited,Corporate Office at Blue Valley Celestial, No.41,Nandidurga Main Road, Jayamahal Extn.,Bangalore – 560 046.Also at :M/s.Bluevalley Properties Private Limited,No.206, 2nd Floor,Brigade MM Annexe, K.R.Road,Bangalore – 560 070.Advocate – Sri.V.LakshmiPathi<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to execute the sale deed with respect to the site allotted and pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> 2. Complainants being lured away with the advertisement propaganda and publicity given by the OP who claim to be a promoter and developer of the residential villa in the name and style “Smilee Ananda Vana Phase III” thought of purchasing a site measuring 30Ft. x 40Ft. in the project floated by OP. An agreement to sell came to be executed on 27-08-2007. The total cost of the site is fixed at Rs.12,37,000/-. Complainants paid in all Rs.5,00,000/- but still there were no developmental activities at all. On enquiry complainants came to know that the said project is not approved by the statutory authority BIAAPA. On insistance OP started demanding the enhanced the cost of the site to the tune of Rs.3,55,000/-. Complainants felt unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence, he obliged to issue a legal notice on 26-12-2008. There was no response again. Though complainants invested their hard earned money they are unable to reap the fruits of their investment because of the hostile attitude of the OP. Under the circumstances complainants are advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 3. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainants have not paid the total cost of the plot, they have become defaulter. OP has tried its level best to get the approval from BIAAPA. Unfortunately it is not succeeded, no fault lies with the OP. OP is ready to repay the advance amount with nominal interest. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainants filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<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 /> 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:<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 outset it is not at dispute that the complainants opted to purchase a residential site in the project floated by the OP in the name and style “Smile Ananda Vana Phase III”. An agreement to sell came to be executed on 27-08-2007 the total cost of the plot was fixed at Rs.12,37,000/-. OP agreed to complete the said project within short span of time. Complainants paid Rs.5,00,000/- towards the part payment of the plot. OP acknowledged the receipt of the same. <br /> <br /> 8. Now the grievance of the complainants is that though they are ready and willing to pay remaining balance OP failed to give them the approved sanctioned layout plan, mother deed, title deeds and revenue documents, inspite of the repeated demand and request made by the complainant. OP promised to complete the project within 15 months but it failed. On enquiry, complainants came to know that the said project is not approved by BIAAPA. Hence they felt that they are duped. <br /> <br /> 9. It appears in the nearest future OP are unable to complete the said project. When that is so, with all fairness OP would have voluntarily refunded the cost of the plot received from the complainants. But unfortunately no such steps are taken. OP without executing the sale deed of the plot retained the said huge amount, thus accrued the wrongful gain to self and caused wrongful loss to the complainant that too for no fault of theirs. Though complainants invested their hard earned money they are unable to reap the fruits of the investment it is all because of the hostile attitude of the OP. We are satisfied that the complainants are able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of OP.<br /> <br /> 10. Of course complainants have sought for the relief with regard to issuance of the direction to the OP to execute the sale deed with respect to the plot. As already observed by us when the project is not completed and it is not approved by the statutory authority hence, we find it is not fair for the complainant to seek such relief because no such sites free from the encumbrance are available at the disposal of the OP. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case we find justice will be met by directing the OP to refund the sital value with cost and interest. OP is ready to refund the said amount with 15% interest. Bearing all these facts in mind, we are of the view that the complainants deserve the refund of the cost paid. With these reasons we answer point 1 & 2 accordingly and we proceed to pass the following : -<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part.<br /> <br /> OP is directed to refund Rs.5,00,000/- with 15% interest from 27-08-2007 till realization and pay a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-.<br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within 4 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 5th day of August 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> NRS <br />