Chairman. V/S Mr. Rajesh Kumar. - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

cc/09/2512

Mr. Rajesh Kumar. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chairman. - Opp.Party(s)

16 Nov 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/09/2512

Mr. Rajesh Kumar.						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Chairman. Managing Director .						...........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

COMPLAINT FILED ON: 27.10.2009 DISPOSED ON: 11.11.2010 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 11TH NOVEMBER 2010 PRESENT:- SRI.B.S.REDDY PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER COMPLAINT NOs. 2512 & 2513/2009, COMPLAINT NO.2512/2009 COMPLAINANT COMPLAINT NO.2513/2009 COMPLAINANT Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Aged 47 years, Sycon One, Flat No.G, 1st Floor, Dr. ambedkar Medical College Road, K.B.Sandra, R.T.Nagar, Bangalore-560 032. Advocate H.S.Girish Reddy, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Aged 47 years, Sycon One, Flat No.G, 1st Floor, Dr. ambedkar Medical College Road, K.B.Sandra, R.T.Nagar, Bangalore-560 032. Advocate H.S.Girish Reddy, V/s OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Chariman Vaibhava Projects, No.49/12, Raghavendra Nilaya, 1st Floor, 3rd Cross, Corporation Layout, 4th Blcok, Jayanagara, Bangalore-11 Rep. by Chairman V.M.K. Reddy Exparte 2. Managing Director, Prop Mart, Technologies Limited, No.6, 2nd Floor, Regent Point, Food World Building, Opposite to Saibaba Temple Shirdi Saibaba Mandir Road, Cambridge Layout, Ulsoor, Bangalore-560 008. Represented by its R.Balaji, Managing Director In person O R D E R SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER These two complaints are filed u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the same complainant, seeking direction to the Opposite Parties (herein after called as O.P) to refund whatever amount paid to OP towards purchase of plots along with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of respective payments and costs. In complaint No.2513/09 complainant claimed refund of amount of Rs.5,65,000/- and also tax amount of Rs.1,16,400/- along with interest and costs on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. As the OPs in both the complaints are common, the question involved relief claimed being the same, in order to avoid repetition of facts and multiplicity of reasoning these two cases stand disposed of by this common order. 2. The brief averments as could be seen from the contents of these complaints are as under: Complainant being the same person in both the complainants attracted by the advertisements made by OP approached OPs, who are engaged in business of forming the layouts and selling the plots in their layout namely Vaibhava Projects. OP-1 is the developer and OP-2 is the promoter. OP-1 formed another layout called Little England at Survey No.24, Near Hosur, near TVS factory in kuppatti Village. Wherein numbers of plots were formed complainant selected plot No.210 and plot No.132 and paid the sale consideration as shown in the chart below. OP -1 issued the cash receipt. Complainant approached OP-1 & 2 requested to execute the sale deed in his favour. On 20.07.2007 OP-2 gave the letter to the complainant stating amount is received in favour of M/s. Vaibhava Projects Mr. Praveen Kumar was the managing director of OP-2 Company at the time of booking the plot by the complainant. Now Mr. Praveen kumar left OP-2 Company and joined as CEO in OP-1 Company. The complainant after selling his immovable property situated at Jemshedpur purchased this property. Thinking that he will get 20% capital gain or otherwise he has to pay tax an capital gain to government from his pocket intended to purchase plots. Since the value of the property has gone up OPs are not intending in executing the sale deeds; inspite of repeated requests and demands. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of OPs. For the convenience sake plot No., Site measurement, amount paid, date of payment are noted below in the chart. When the repeated request and demands made by the complainant gone in vain he, is advised to file these complaints and sought for the reliefs accordingly. Sl.No. Complaint No. Plot No. Site measure- ment Amount paid Date of payment No and date of receipt 1 2512/09 210 50 x 50 4,70,000/- 20.07.07 050 21.7.07 2 2513/09 132 50 x 60 5,65,000/- 16.07.07 049 18.7.07 3. After registration of the complaint notice is sent to OP 1 and 2. Inspite of service of notice OP-1 remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. Hence OP-1 is placed ex-parte. Chief executive officer OP-2 appeared in person. Inspite of giving sufficient opportunity OP-2 not filed version. Hence taken as version not filed. Complainant filed his affidavit evidence. In both the cases produced copy of the cheques dated 16.07.2007 for a sum of Rs.5,65,000/- and dated 20.07.2007 for a sum of Rs.4,70,000/- dated 18.07.2007 and 21.07.2007 for a sum of Rs.4,70,00/- and Rs.5,65,000/- booking form dated 11.07.2007 and 20.07.2007, bank account extracts, letter of OP-2 dated 20.07.2007, 18.07.2007, Letters of OP-1 dated 29.10.2007, Acknowledgement issued by Income tax department. OP-1 & 2 did not participate in the proceedings. Heard arguments of the complainant. 4. It is the case of the complainant that he being attracted by the advertisements made by OPs who are engaged in forming of the layouts and selling the plots booked plot No.132 and 210 at their layout called little england situated at Survey No.24 near Hosure near TVS factory in kuppatti village and paid the entire sale consideration of Rs. 4,70,000/- towards plot No.210 and Rs.5,65,000/- towards plot No.132 including registration charges by way of cheques dated 20.07.2007 and 16.07.2007. The receipts issued by Op-1 produced. Further OP-1 and 2 both have given letters to complainant confirming the entire payment of sale consideration including registration charges. Further there is no due from the complainant. Complainant approached OP-1 and 2 requesting to execute the sale deed in respect of the plots purchased by him. There was no response from OPs since the value of the property has gone up. OPs are not showing any interest in executing the sale deeds in favour of the complainant. Inspite of repeated requests when OPs failed to give any response complainant approached this forum. 5. We have perused the unchallenged affidavit evidence and documents produced by the complainant. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant. OPs having accepted the entire sale consideration of two plots including registration charges failed to execute the sale deeds in favour of the complainant. This act of OP amounts to deficiency in service. We are satisfied that complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Inspite of service of notice OPs remained absent and not chosen to file their version. From the absence of OPs we can draw the inference that OPs admits all the allegations made by the complainant. If the OPs are aware that they are unable to execute the sale deeds they could have fairly refunded the amount to the complainant. Retention of amount by OPs without responding for more than 3 years so as to make wrongful gain amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Under these circumstances complainant is entitled for refund of amount paid along with interest at the rate of 12 % p.a. from the date of respective payment till realization and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- in each case. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: ORDER The complaints are allowed in part. In complaint No. 2512/09, OP-1 and 2 are directed to refund Rs.4,70,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 20.07.2007 till realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. In complaint No. 2513/09, OP-1 and 2 are directed to refund Rs.5,65,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 16.07.2007 till realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication. The original order shall be kept in the file of the complaint No.2512/09 and a copy of it shall be placed in other respective 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 11th day of November 2010.) MEMBER PRESIDENT gm.

COMPLAINT FILED ON: 27.10.2009 DISPOSED ON: 11.11.2010 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 11TH NOVEMBER 2010 PRESENT:- SRI.B.S.REDDY PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER COMPLAINT NOs. 2512 & 2513/2009, COMPLAINT NO.2512/2009 COMPLAINANT COMPLAINT NO.2513/2009 COMPLAINANT Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Aged 47 years, Sycon One, Flat No.G, 1st Floor, Dr. ambedkar Medical College Road, K.B.Sandra, R.T.Nagar, Bangalore-560 032. Advocate H.S.Girish Reddy, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Aged 47 years, Sycon One, Flat No.G, 1st Floor, Dr. ambedkar Medical College Road, K.B.Sandra, R.T.Nagar, Bangalore-560 032. Advocate H.S.Girish Reddy, V/s OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Chariman Vaibhava Projects, No.49/12, Raghavendra Nilaya, 1st Floor, 3rd Cross, Corporation Layout, 4th Blcok, Jayanagara, Bangalore-11 Rep. by Chairman V.M.K. Reddy Exparte 2. Managing Director, Prop Mart, Technologies Limited, No.6, 2nd Floor, Regent Point, Food World Building, Opposite to Saibaba Temple Shirdi Saibaba Mandir Road, Cambridge Layout, Ulsoor, Bangalore-560 008. Represented by its R.Balaji, Managing Director In person O R D E R SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER These two complaints are filed u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the same complainant, seeking direction to the Opposite Parties (herein after called as O.P) to refund whatever amount paid to OP towards purchase of plots along with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of respective payments and costs. In complaint No.2513/09 complainant claimed refund of amount of Rs.5,65,000/- and also tax amount of Rs.1,16,400/- along with interest and costs on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. As the OPs in both the complaints are common, the question involved relief claimed being the same, in order to avoid repetition of facts and multiplicity of reasoning these two cases stand disposed of by this common order. 2. The brief averments as could be seen from the contents of these complaints are as under: Complainant being the same person in both the complainants attracted by the advertisements made by OP approached OPs, who are engaged in business of forming the layouts and selling the plots in their layout namely Vaibhava Projects. OP-1 is the developer and OP-2 is the promoter. OP-1 formed another layout called Little England at Survey No.24, Near Hosur, near TVS factory in kuppatti Village. Wherein numbers of plots were formed complainant selected plot No.210 and plot No.132 and paid the sale consideration as shown in the chart below. OP -1 issued the cash receipt. Complainant approached OP-1 & 2 requested to execute the sale deed in his favour. On 20.07.2007 OP-2 gave the letter to the complainant stating amount is received in favour of M/s. Vaibhava Projects Mr. Praveen Kumar was the managing director of OP-2 Company at the time of booking the plot by the complainant. Now Mr. Praveen kumar left OP-2 Company and joined as CEO in OP-1 Company. The complainant after selling his immovable property situated at Jemshedpur purchased this property. Thinking that he will get 20% capital gain or otherwise he has to pay tax an capital gain to government from his pocket intended to purchase plots. Since the value of the property has gone up OPs are not intending in executing the sale deeds; inspite of repeated requests and demands. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of OPs. For the convenience sake plot No., Site measurement, amount paid, date of payment are noted below in the chart. When the repeated request and demands made by the complainant gone in vain he, is advised to file these complaints and sought for the reliefs accordingly. Sl.No. Complaint No. Plot No. Site measure- ment Amount paid Date of payment No and date of receipt 1 2512/09 210 50 x 50 4,70,000/- 20.07.07 050 21.7.07 2 2513/09 132 50 x 60 5,65,000/- 16.07.07 049 18.7.07 3. After registration of the complaint notice is sent to OP 1 and 2. Inspite of service of notice OP-1 remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. Hence OP-1 is placed ex-parte. Chief executive officer OP-2 appeared in person. Inspite of giving sufficient opportunity OP-2 not filed version. Hence taken as version not filed. Complainant filed his affidavit evidence. In both the cases produced copy of the cheques dated 16.07.2007 for a sum of Rs.5,65,000/- and dated 20.07.2007 for a sum of Rs.4,70,000/- dated 18.07.2007 and 21.07.2007 for a sum of Rs.4,70,00/- and Rs.5,65,000/- booking form dated 11.07.2007 and 20.07.2007, bank account extracts, letter of OP-2 dated 20.07.2007, 18.07.2007, Letters of OP-1 dated 29.10.2007, Acknowledgement issued by Income tax department. OP-1 & 2 did not participate in the proceedings. Heard arguments of the complainant. 4. It is the case of the complainant that he being attracted by the advertisements made by OPs who are engaged in forming of the layouts and selling the plots booked plot No.132 and 210 at their layout called little england situated at Survey No.24 near Hosure near TVS factory in kuppatti village and paid the entire sale consideration of Rs. 4,70,000/- towards plot No.210 and Rs.5,65,000/- towards plot No.132 including registration charges by way of cheques dated 20.07.2007 and 16.07.2007. The receipts issued by Op-1 produced. Further OP-1 and 2 both have given letters to complainant confirming the entire payment of sale consideration including registration charges. Further there is no due from the complainant. Complainant approached OP-1 and 2 requesting to execute the sale deed in respect of the plots purchased by him. There was no response from OPs since the value of the property has gone up. OPs are not showing any interest in executing the sale deeds in favour of the complainant. Inspite of repeated requests when OPs failed to give any response complainant approached this forum. 5. We have perused the unchallenged affidavit evidence and documents produced by the complainant. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant. OPs having accepted the entire sale consideration of two plots including registration charges failed to execute the sale deeds in favour of the complainant. This act of OP amounts to deficiency in service. We are satisfied that complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Inspite of service of notice OPs remained absent and not chosen to file their version. From the absence of OPs we can draw the inference that OPs admits all the allegations made by the complainant. If the OPs are aware that they are unable to execute the sale deeds they could have fairly refunded the amount to the complainant. Retention of amount by OPs without responding for more than 3 years so as to make wrongful gain amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Under these circumstances complainant is entitled for refund of amount paid along with interest at the rate of 12 % p.a. from the date of respective payment till realization and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- in each case. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: ORDER The complaints are allowed in part. In complaint No. 2512/09, OP-1 and 2 are directed to refund Rs.4,70,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 20.07.2007 till realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. In complaint No. 2513/09, OP-1 and 2 are directed to refund Rs.5,65,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 16.07.2007 till realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication. The original order shall be kept in the file of the complaint No.2512/09 and a copy of it shall be placed in other respective 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 11th day of November 2010.) MEMBER PRESIDENT gm.