BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 04^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023

ORDER

SMT.M.SHOBHA, PRESIDENT

1. The complaint has been filed under Section 35 of C.P.Act (hereinafter referred as an Act) against the OP for the following reliefs against the OP:-

1. Stop all new site sale in the township/area by OP’s (all proxies) until such a time that RERA registration is complete so that no other innocent trusting individuals such as myself suffer at the hands of unscrupulous real estate dealers who lure you with their promises only to financially exploit you for decades right away. Presently they are continuing to misrepresent and fool innocent buyers using same false promises to part with booking amounts on land which they don’t even own which are then non refundable and withheld forever.
2. Compensate me for the grief and misery they have shamelessly caused me over the last decade including reimbursement of all mounting expenses incurred and liable to be incurred as outlined in relief claimed totaling Rs.11,64,00,000.  Even though no amount of money will every give me back the 10 years I could have lived and enjoyed my house with my family while likely by now having almost nearly repaid my home loan, probably kicking back relaxing in life, instead I am now embarked on a consumer court case, embroiled in a police complaint, at risk of being prosecuted for trespassing through someone’s land in order to reach my own site for want of any other avenue, stepping into a debt laden future for double of what should have been my construction cost while being unsure what next curve ball he will throw at me just out of spite to get even, I refuse to allow myself to be victimized anymore.
3. Direct him to furnish proof to substantiate all of the counter claims he has made against me thus for failing which it would clearly indicate that he is running a scam and not a legitimate business and he should be made liable for criminal proceedings against my already registered police complaint.
4. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of this case in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

The complainant had entered into sale agreement on 16.09.2012 for purchase of the site measuring 5040 sq. feet within the residential layout of the OP.  The OP have promised to acquire DC conversion process u/s 95 of the KLR Act for the said survey numbers.  The agreed rate of the site per sq. Feet in sy.No.66/2 was Rs.875/- and the total amount for 5040 sq. feet was Rs.42,00,000/-.  The complainant has paid half the sale amount i.e., Rs.21,00,000/- on 16.09.2012 and she was agreed to pay the remaining amount till 30.06.2013 or 60 days from the date of written notice from the OP for having completed all the infrastructural works such as road, electricity, water connection, land scape etc.,

3. It is further case of the complainant that as per the agreement dated 16.09.2012 in case of failure to secure DC conversion on the said property within two years from the agreement the OP will offer at no extra cost replacement/alternative sites of the same dimension within Asha Wings/Asha Township on which such conversion has been obtained. It was further agreed that if the OP failed to execute the sale deed within the stipulated period or in case of any other defects in the property the OP has agreed to refund the full advance amount with 18% p.a., simple interest due until the date of receipt of such refund.  

4. It is further case of the complainant that she has frequently met the OP customer support executives to provide the possession of the site booked in the year 2012 but they are not able to provide any remedy and they have also unable to sell the site which was booked by the complainant for such a less price and they have demanded the complainant to pay the current price or to take an alternative site of less measurement.  Finally the complainant was offered site No.42 and 43 measuring 2000 sq. feet each totally measuring 4000 sq. Feet in sy.No.72 on 10.01.2022 and it was allotted and registered in the name of the complainant.  

5. It is further case of the complainant that at the time of registration the OP have assured to complete the development work such as road, electricity and water connection within 10 days but till today there was no any progress regarding any of the promised development works. In addition to this the allotted site is smaller by 1040 sq. feet less than what was agreed by the OP i.e., 5040 sq. feet as per the original sale agreement dated 16.09.2012.  There are multiple deficiencies of drainage, proper motorable access road, easement rights, BESCOM electricity poles for consumer meter, bore well water supply from within layout and sewage which were promised in the original agreement and developmental charges paid as confirmed via deed. In addition to the documentation evidencing as to which part of the said sy.No.72 is duly converted has not been furnished.

6. It is further grievance of the complainant that due to non-completion of the developmental work the complainant was compelled to construct a temporary access to her site on her own cost and a pathway for passing heavy loaded vehicles which were transporting construction materials for the construction of her building.   To her utter astonishment the gate security has stopped all the heavy loaded vehicle stating that they are not allowed to enter the premises as it was damaging the internal roads which are not even constructed properly and has caused heavy monitory loss, harassment and mental stress to the complainant. When the demands made by the complainant was not at all complied by the Ops she has finally got issued legal notice on 21.09.2022. Inspite of service of the notice the Ops have not taken any action either to reply the notice or to comply the demands. She has also got lodged police complaint. The police authorities after summoning the OP and other witnesses have closed the complaint stating that after enquiry the Ops have agreed that they will not give any trouble to the complainant and they will allow only six wheels vehicles to transport the building materials and they can’t allow the 12 wheels vehicles as they will damage the internal roads of the property. The complainant has also further tried to form another road to transport her building materials by spending substantial amount and later she realized that the land in which temporary road was formed by this complainant belongs to neighboring land owner.  The neighboring land owner has also fenced his property and not allowed the complainant to proceed with the formation of road. Under these circumstances the complainant has filed this complaint seeking the relief to direct the Ops to provide a pakka motorable access road and to complete all remaining committed developmental work within 15 days.  The complainant has also prayed for to direct the Ops to buy the neighboring land for formation of the pakka motorable road and to direct the Ops to provide three crores to the complainant to complete all developmental works such as motorable tar road, drainage, water connection, electricity and sewage work and also for direction to the Ops to pay the compensation.

7. In response to the notice, OP appears and filed version after lapse of 45 days and hence it was rejected.

8. The complainant has filed her affidavit evidence and relies on 73 documents. 

9. Heard the arguments of advocate for the complainant. 

10. The following points arise for our consideration as are:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OPs?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

11. Our answers to the above points are as under:

Point No.1:  Affirmative in part

Point No.2:  Affirmative in part

Point No.3: As per final orders

REASONS

12. Point No.1 AND 2: These two points are inter related and hence they have taken for common discussion.  We have perused the allegations made in the complaint and documents filed by the complainant.

13. It is clear from the evidence and the documents that the complainant has purchased the site No.42 and 43 measuring 2000 sq. feet each totally measuring 4000 sq. feet in sy.No.72 on 10.01.2022. Earlier she was entered into an agreement with the OP on 16.09.2012 and the OP have agreed to allot the site measuring 5040 sq. feet for Rs.42,00,000/- in Sy. No.66/2. When they failed to provide the site in sy.No.66/2 and finally they have offered the complainant to purchase the site formed in sy.No.72.  The complainant has totally paid consideration amount of Rs.35,00,000/- and purchased the site No.42 and 43 formed in Sy.No.72.

14. It is the specific grievance of the complainant that at the time of registration of the site the Ops have agreed to complete the development work such as road, electricity and water connection within 10 days but till today there is no any progress regarding any of the promised development work. Even though the Ops have agreed to sell the site measuring 5040 sq. feet but they have sold the small site and it is measuring only 4000 sq. feet.

15. When the Ops have failed to make a motorable road to reach the site of the complainant and also failed to provide the basic amenities such as electricity, water connection and sewage connection she has filed a complaint before the police authorities. After enquiry the police authorities have closed a complaint after taking an undertaking by the OP that they will allow only six wheeled vehicles into the layout for transportation of the building materials for the construction of the complainant’s house and they will not allow more than six wheelers vehicles for transportation of the building materials. After that the complainant has also got issued legal notice on 21.09.2022 requesting the Ops to complete the development works and also to pay the compensation and damages as they failed to complete the development work.  Inspite of service of the notice the Ops neither gave any reply nor complied with the demands made by the complainant.

16. On perusal of the documents produced by the complainant it is clear that the complainant before purchase of the site have also obtained a legal opinion from the advocate and the legal opinion given by the advocate also clearly discloses that the sites formed by the Ops are in the agricultural land and they are revenue sites and they have formed the layout without obtaining the DC conversion order and the layout where the sites have been formed is also not approved from the competent authorities.  As per the panchayat khata extract the site number of the complainant comes under the panchayat jurisdiction. The concerned advocate have also advised the complainant only to proceed with the transaction after obtaining the documents proposed in the scrutiny list from the OP.

17. It is pertinent to note here that the complainant entered into the sale agreement on 16.08.2012 by paying an amount of Rs.21,00,000/-. After struggling with the Ops finally she has got a sale deed for a lessor dimension of the site by paying Rs.35,00,000/- on 10.01.2022 after lapse of more than 10 years.  The complainant has purchased the site after knowing all the defects and she has also obtained the legal opinion by scrutinizing the documents from the competent legal advisor.  The complainant has also obtained the registered sale deed by knowing all these defects.  When the complainant is very much aware of the defects that there is no proper approachable motorable road to approach her site and the OP have not provided the basic amenities like water, electricity and sewage connection to the sites.  

18. There is no recital in the sale deed that the developmental work is not at all completed and the Ops will provide the motorable road and other basic amenities after purchase of the site within 10 days.

19. The complainant has filed this complaint claiming exorbitant reliefs to direct the Ops to purchase the adjacent land by spending eight crores to form the motorable road and again to direct the Ops to pay three crores to her to complete the developmental works etc.,

20. Even though the Ops have appeared before this commission have failed to file their version within the stipulated period.  The evidence and the documents filed by the complainant remains unchallenged.  

21. It is pertinent to note here that the complainant has filed this complaint in person without having any legal knowledge and also the jurisdiction of this pecuniary jurisdiction.  She is claiming an exorbitant amount of compensation and also claiming the relief to direct the OP to spent more than 10 to 11 crores to form the road and to provide basic amenities.  

22. It is the duty of the OP to provide basic amenities to the layout after forming the layout.  The OP has to provide the road, water and electricity and sewage connection which are basic in nature.  

23. The complainant has filed this complaint on her own independently and it is not a representative complaint.  She can only claim the relief independently for herself and she cannot claim any relief in a representative capacity.  The complainant is only a purchaser of the site in the layout. She cannot take any lead to form the road on the adjacent neighboring land who is in no way connected with this layout or the OP.  She is not an authorized person to form the road on behalf of other owners of the sites in the layout as she has not got any authority or power to represent the other owners of the said layout. Under all these circumstances this commission cannot direct the OP to buy an adjacent land for eight crores to form the road and also spend three crores through the complainant to complete the developmental works for providing basic amenities, such as water electricity and sewage connection and for the road.

24. When the complainant has purchased the said site after knowing all the defects the burden is on the complainant to get the amenities and other development works done through the OP. under these circumstances the complainant has failed to establish that the Ops have got registered the sale deed in her favour by giving false assurances. If the complainant wants to cancel the said registered sale deed she has to approach the competent civil court and this commission has no jurisdiction to declare the cancellation of the registered sale deed and to direct the Ops to refund the amount.  The complainant has not completely established the deficiency of service and also negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.  

25. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel it is necessary to direct the Ops to provide the basic amenities and motorable road to the layout as sought by the complainant.  The remaining prayers sought by the complainant is hereby rejected Hence we answer point No.1 and point No.2 partly in the affirmative.

26. Point No.3:- In view the discussion referred above we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The Ops hereby directed to provide basic amenities to the complainant’s site by providing motorable road, drainage, water connection, electricity and sewage connection.
3. Other prayers sought by the complainant are hereby rejected.
4. The OP shall comply this order within 90 days from this date of this order.
5. Furnish the copy of this order and return the extra pleadings and documents to the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 04^TH day of OCTOBER, 2023)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;

NIL