<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 25.11.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 07th FEBRUARY 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2552/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Mr.Vasanthraj Sural,S/o Late Chandrashekariah,Aged 60 years,No.12, New No.25,4th Cross, 4th Block,Kumar Park West Extn.Bangalore – 560020.Advocate – Sri.N.Sukumar JainV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY M/s.C.S.Holding Pvt Ltd.,(An Associate of Citi Sites Bangalore Pvt Ltd.,)101, Batavia Chambers, 08Kumar Krupa Road,Bangalore – 560001.<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 refund Rs.2,86,600/- along with interest and pay a compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant being lured away with the advertisement and propaganda issued by the OP who claims to be the developers and promoters of layouts consisting of residential sites of various dimensions at Basavanahalli, Nelamangala Town, N.H-4 thought of purchasing 4 sites each measuring 30’ x 40’ in the layout formed in the name and style ‘Prime City Colony’. In that regard complainant in all paid Rs.2,86,600/- to the OP on 03.08.1995. Thereafter he patiently waited for the completion of the layout and registration of the site. But in spite of the repeated requests and demands made by the complainant OP failed to heed to his demand. When complainant visited the alleged layout there were no developmental activities at all, no layout is formed, sites are not marked. It is not approved by the statutory authorities. Thus complainant felt that he is duped. In spite of his repeated requests and demands OP went on protracting the registration and allotment of the site. Hence complainant is constrained to issue notice and thereafter a legal notice. There was no proper response. The hostile attitude of the OP has caused him both mental agony and financial loss. Though he invested his hard earned money he is unable to reap the fruits of investment because of the unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were sent to the OP. OP refused to accept the said notice. An endorsement is made by postal authority “as not claimed”. Service is held sufficient. The absence of the OP does not appear to be as bona fide and reasonable. Hence OP is placed Ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP didn’t participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. It is the case of the complainant that he being lured away with the advertisement and propaganda issued by the OP who claims to be the developers and promoters of layouts consisting of residential sites at Basavanahalli, Nelamangala Town, N.H-4 thought of purchasing the sites in the project floated by the OP in the name and style ‘Prime City Colony’. Complainant in all booked 4 sites each measuring 30’ x 40’ on 03.08.1995 and paid in all Rs.2,86,600/- towards the cost of the said sites. Receipts issued by the OP are produced. Then complainant waited patiently for more than a decade but there were no developmental activities at the site.<br /> <br /> 5. It is further contended by the complainant that when he visited the alleged layout site to his utter shock and surprise no layout is formed, sites are not marked nor it is approved by the statutory authorities. Hence complainant felt that he is duped. Though he invested his hard earned money he is unable to reap the fruits of investment because of the hostile attitude of the OP. The evidence of the complainant which finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents deserves to be believed in toto. The non appearance of the OP leads us to draw an inference that OP admits the allegations made by the complainant.<br /> <br /> 6. OP received huge amount of Rs.2,86,600/- in the year 1995 and failed to register and allot the site in favour of the complainant thereby accrued the wrongful gain to self and caused wrongful loss to the complainant that too for no fault of his. Complainant even got issued the legal notice on 12.05.2008. Copy of the same along with postal acknowledgement is produced. Again there was no response. Under such circumstances we find approach of the OP is not fair and honest. There is a proof of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. When that is so, complainant is entitled for the refund of the sital value along with compensation for mental agony and litigation cost. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.2,86,600/- together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from January 2000 till realization and also pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. <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 him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 07th day of February 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />