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

 12^TH DAY OF MAY 2016

O R D E R

SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA,   MEMBER

This is a complaint filed by the complainant in person under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for an order against Opposite Party (herein after referred as OP) to refund Rs.3,50,000/-  with interest at 10% and  Rs.20,000/- compensation along with cost on the allegations of deficiency of service. 

2.      The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows:

OP is a developer and real estate company.  The complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in January 2015 and Rs.3,00,000/- in the month of April 2015 towards purchase of “Shloka Flats” in HSR layout.  In the month of April-2015 complainant applied for cancellation and requested for refund of the amount paid.  OP gave two cheques dated 20.08.2015 and 21.08.2015 and the said two cheques returned dishonoured on presentation for encashment due to insufficient funds and the cheque given by the OP for second time was also dishonoured.  Complainant met relevant person several times, though OP promised to issue DD but it was only an eye wash.  At last OP gave a DD for a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards refund, still OP is due a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-.  Complainant came to know that the property of OP was under court litigation and the said fact was not revealed to the complainant and documents pertaining to the property was also not given as promised.  Thus OP Company has deceived the complainant through their misdeeds.  OP has started a new venture in the name of SMG (Send My Gifts), all the CEO of three companies Dreamz GK, Gruha Kalyan and TGS have started a new venture.  There is a big queue of deceived customers for return of lakhs of rupees by the OP Company.  Complainant could not meet the CEO personally to represent his grievances.  Complainant served in Defence R & D Establishments both in Chennai and Bangalore for 24 years.  Complainant is a 65 years old pensioner, he could not convince his family members, who are against his proposal of being applied for a flat with OP.  Inspite of repeated request and correspondences OP failed to return the amount. Hence, complainant felt deficiency in service against OP.  Under the circumstances, he is advised to file this complaint against OP for appropriate relief.

3.  After registration of the complaint, notice was issued to OP.  Inspite of service of notice OP remained absent without sufficient reason and cause. Hence OP is placed exparte and posted the case for filing affidavit of the complainant.

4. In support of the complaint averments, Mr.M.R.Subramanian, who being the complainant filed his affidavit by way of evidence reiterating the complaint averments and also produced documents.

5. The above said assertions of the complainant has remained unchallenged. OP neither filed version nor denied the sworn testimony of the complainant.  So under the circumstances, we have no reasons to disbelieve the sworn testimony of the complainant.

6. In support of his complaint complainant has produced the following documents. Document No.1 is copy of the cancellation letter issued by OP in the name of complainant dated 28.03.2015 which shows cancellation of the flat “Shloka-1”, 3 BHK Flat measuring 400 Square feet in the project Dreamz Shloka-1 for a sum of Rs.43,00,000/-.  Complainant opted 30% of the payment of Rs.4,00,000/- and has paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as an advance.  Document No.2 is Xerox copy of the photo of the flat which shows a word mentioning “property under litigation” and case is pending in High Court in RFA No.154-2014.  Document No.3 are copies of the letters of the complainant addressed to OP dated 28.08.2015, 20.10.2015, 14.11.2015 requesting OP to refund the amount.  Document No.4 are copies of the two letter of ICICI Bank dated 24.08.2015 stating the cheques for Rs.2,00,000/- each are returned unrealized on 22.08.2015.  Document No.5 is copy of the receipt issued by OP to the complainant dated 27.01.2015 for having received a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards Shloka Project. Document No.6 is copy of a dishonoured cheque issued by OP to the complainant dated 12.10.2015 for a sum of Rs.4,12,106/- towards refund.  Document No.7 and 8 are copies of the letter of the complainant to OP dated 28.08.2015 and 20.10.2015 stating he has applied for cancellation in the month of April 2015, the cheque issued by OP towards refund got bounced.  The property involved in the project is under litigation.  Complainant has to pay Rs.300/- for cheque bounce charges, on failing to refund the amount he will approach the court for necessary relief.

7.  On perusal of oral and documentary evidence produced by the complainant it is crystal clear that the complainant with an intention to own a flat approached OP and paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in January 2015 and Rs.3,00,000/- in April 2015 totally a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to OP as per Document No.4 & 5.  Since OP has failed to furnish the title documents of the property which is under litigation as per Document No.2, photo copy of the flat, sought for refund of the amount paid as per Document No.1. OP has refunded only Rs.50,000/- to the complainant but has failed to refund the balance amount of Rs.3,50,000/-.  Two cheques issued by OP towards refund returned dishonoured on 22.08.2015 for funds insufficient as per Document No.4, letters issued by ICICI Bank.  Complainant being a Senior Citizen and OP has cheated large number of public.  Inspite of repeated requests OP has failed to refund the amount.  Hence, this complaint.

8. From the available materials on record, it is clear that OP having accepted Rs.4,00,000/- from the complainant has neither conveyed the flat nor refunded the amount for more than one year.  OP has refunded only Rs.50,000/- to the complainant but has failed to refund the balance amount of Rs.3,50,000/-.  It appears the property is under litigation.  Hence, complainant sought for refund of the amount paid.  OP having issued the cheque towards refund got it dishonoured.  Retention of amount for more than one year amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP.  We are satisfied that complainant proved deficiency in service against OP.  Under the circumstances we are of the considered view that OP is liable to refund Rs.3,50,000/- to the complainant along with interest at 18% per annum and compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

1. The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part. 

2.  OP is directed to refund Rs.3,50,000/- to the complainant along with interest at 18% per annum from 27.01.2015 till realization.

3.  Further OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-.

4.  This order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

5. Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

 (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 12^th day of May 2016)

MEMBER                                                                   PRESIDENT

NRS* 

COMPLAINT NO.204/2016

Witness examined on behalf of the complainant dated 21.03.2016 Sri.M.R.Subramanian,

Witnesses examined on behalf of the OP – Absent

List of documents produced by the OP– Nil

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT