Citi Green Farms V/S jayaram pvk - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/08/2564

jayaram pvk - Complainant(s)

Versus

Citi Green Farms - Opp.Party(s)

keshav

08 Dec 2008

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/08/2564

jayaram pvk						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Citi Green Farms						...........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: 26.11.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 04th FEBRUARY 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2564/2008 COMPLAINANT Sri. Jayaram V.K., S/o. M.C.K. Nambiar, Major, R/o Flat No. 76, Shivaji Enclave, 43, Netaji Road, Fraser Town, Bangalore 560 005. Advocate (Shanmukhappa) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY M/s. Citi Green Farms (P) Ltd., Registered Office at No. 2, Ist Floor, 24th Main, J.P. Nagar, Ist Phase, Bangalore 560 078. Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director Sri. B. Radharamana. O R D E R 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 register the sale deed with respect to the site bearing No. H-32 measuring 50 X 80 feet and pay a damages of Rs.3,60,000/- and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant being lured away with the advertisement and propaganda issued by the OP, who claims to be the promoters and developers of residential sites of various dimensions in and around Bangalore, thought of purchasing a site in the project floated by the OP at Mayaganahalli Village. OP accepted his membership and agreed to sell site No. H-32 measuring 50 X 80 feet and executed the sale agreement on 08.08.2005 for a total cost of Rs.12,00,000/-. Complainant paid Rs.3,60,000/- on 23.07.2005, he was ready to pay the remaining balance at the time of registration. When complainant visited the alleged layout to his utter shock and surprise there were no developmental activities at all and he came to know that OP is unable to get approval from BMRDA to his project. Thus felt in a nearest future OP is not going to complete the said project, hence demanded OP to refund the amount by causing a legal notice on 03.10.2007. Again there was no response. Though complainant invested his hard earned money, he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment. Under such circumstances he felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief. 2. OP appeared through Advocate took time to file the version and evidence. Inspite of availing sufficient and reasonable opportunity, failed to pay the cost and failed to file version and evidence. It appears OP has no interest to defend his case. Hence it has taken as version not filed so also evidence. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP did not participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard. 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 promoters and developers of residential sites in and around Bangalore, thought of purchasing a site at Mayaganahalli Village project floated by the OP. OP accepted his membership and allotted him the site bearing No. H-32 measuring 50 X 80 feet for a total cost of Rs.12,00,000/-. Complainant paid Rs.3,60,000/- on 23.07.2005. Under the sale agreement dated 08.08.2005 OP promised to complete the said project within 3-4 months. Complainant was ready and ever ready to pay the remaining balance of Rs.8,40,000/-. When he visited the alleged layout to his utter shock and surprise there were no developmental activities at all. 5. According to the complainant on enquiry he came to know that OP failed to obtain the BMRDA permission to complete the said project. Under such circumstances he felt that in a nearest future OP is not going to complete the said project and register a site in his favour, that is why he caused the legal notice on 03.10.2007. The copy of the legal notice is produced. The evidence of the complainant finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. The non-participation of the OP evenafter the due service of the notice leads us to draw an inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant. Complainant invested his hard earned money to purchase a site, unfortunately he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of the hostile attitude of the OP. OP having retained the said huge amount accrued the wrongful gain to self without allotting and registering the site in favour of the complainant, thereby caused the wrongful loss to the complainant, that too for no fault of his. 6. Having taken note of the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears OP is unable to complete the said project because of the want of statutory sanction from BMRDA. When that is so, in a nearest future it appears it is not possible for OP to complete the said project. Under such circumstances it would have been more fair on the part of the OP atleast to refund whatever the sital value that is received, but OP has not shown his bonafide in that regard. Here also we find the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. In view of these reasons in our considered view the justice will be met by directing the OP to refund whatever the sital value that is received along with a interest and pay some compensation and litigation cost. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.3,60,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 23.07.2005 till realization and pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. (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 04th day of February 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

COMPLAINT FILED: 26.11.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 04th FEBRUARY 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2564/2008 COMPLAINANT Sri. Jayaram V.K., S/o. M.C.K. Nambiar, Major, R/o Flat No. 76, Shivaji Enclave, 43, Netaji Road, Fraser Town, Bangalore 560 005. Advocate (Shanmukhappa) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY M/s. Citi Green Farms (P) Ltd., Registered Office at No. 2, Ist Floor, 24th Main, J.P. Nagar, Ist Phase, Bangalore 560 078. Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director Sri. B. Radharamana. O R D E R 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 register the sale deed with respect to the site bearing No. H-32 measuring 50 X 80 feet and pay a damages of Rs.3,60,000/- and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant being lured away with the advertisement and propaganda issued by the OP, who claims to be the promoters and developers of residential sites of various dimensions in and around Bangalore, thought of purchasing a site in the project floated by the OP at Mayaganahalli Village. OP accepted his membership and agreed to sell site No. H-32 measuring 50 X 80 feet and executed the sale agreement on 08.08.2005 for a total cost of Rs.12,00,000/-. Complainant paid Rs.3,60,000/- on 23.07.2005, he was ready to pay the remaining balance at the time of registration. When complainant visited the alleged layout to his utter shock and surprise there were no developmental activities at all and he came to know that OP is unable to get approval from BMRDA to his project. Thus felt in a nearest future OP is not going to complete the said project, hence demanded OP to refund the amount by causing a legal notice on 03.10.2007. Again there was no response. Though complainant invested his hard earned money, he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment. Under such circumstances he felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief. 2. OP appeared through Advocate took time to file the version and evidence. Inspite of availing sufficient and reasonable opportunity, failed to pay the cost and failed to file version and evidence. It appears OP has no interest to defend his case. Hence it has taken as version not filed so also evidence. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP did not participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard. 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 promoters and developers of residential sites in and around Bangalore, thought of purchasing a site at Mayaganahalli Village project floated by the OP. OP accepted his membership and allotted him the site bearing No. H-32 measuring 50 X 80 feet for a total cost of Rs.12,00,000/-. Complainant paid Rs.3,60,000/- on 23.07.2005. Under the sale agreement dated 08.08.2005 OP promised to complete the said project within 3-4 months. Complainant was ready and ever ready to pay the remaining balance of Rs.8,40,000/-. When he visited the alleged layout to his utter shock and surprise there were no developmental activities at all. 5. According to the complainant on enquiry he came to know that OP failed to obtain the BMRDA permission to complete the said project. Under such circumstances he felt that in a nearest future OP is not going to complete the said project and register a site in his favour, that is why he caused the legal notice on 03.10.2007. The copy of the legal notice is produced. The evidence of the complainant finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. The non-participation of the OP evenafter the due service of the notice leads us to draw an inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant. Complainant invested his hard earned money to purchase a site, unfortunately he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of the hostile attitude of the OP. OP having retained the said huge amount accrued the wrongful gain to self without allotting and registering the site in favour of the complainant, thereby caused the wrongful loss to the complainant, that too for no fault of his. 6. Having taken note of the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears OP is unable to complete the said project because of the want of statutory sanction from BMRDA. When that is so, in a nearest future it appears it is not possible for OP to complete the said project. Under such circumstances it would have been more fair on the part of the OP atleast to refund whatever the sital value that is received, but OP has not shown his bonafide in that regard. Here also we find the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. In view of these reasons in our considered view the justice will be met by directing the OP to refund whatever the sital value that is received along with a interest and pay some compensation and litigation cost. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.3,60,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 23.07.2005 till realization and pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. (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 04th day of February 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.