Karnataka

Bangalore 2nd Additional

CC/1653/2009

Sri D. Mayilvaganan - Complainant(s)

Versus

G.A. Muniraju, MD, M/s. Manjunatha Land Developers & Constructions Pvt., Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

IP

24 Aug 2009

ORDER


IInd ADDL. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN
No.1/7, Swathi Complex, 4th Floor, Seshadripuram, Bangalore-560 020
consumer case(CC) No. CC/1653/2009

Sri D. Mayilvaganan
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

G.A. Muniraju, MD, M/s. Manjunatha Land Developers & Constructions Pvt., Ltd.,
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(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

Order dated 24.08.2009 24/08/2009 Complainant:-IP Opposite-Party:- This is a complaint filed by the complaint seeking refund of amount paid by him for booking the flat. As per the complainant’s case he has paid in all Rs.1,60,000/- to the opposite party by way of cheque. The complainant has produced statement of account of his Bank. On looking to the Bank statement it is very clear that the complainant has paid Rs. 1,60,000/- through cheque to the opposite party. The complainant has produced booking application form and receipt issued by the opposite party. The complainant submitted that the opposite party has given undertaking that he will refund the amount. The complainant submitted that opposite party had given a cheque for Rs.50,000/- dated 19/06/2009 and the said cheque was bounced for insufficient funds. It is unfortunate that the cheque given by the opposite party has been bounced and thereby the opposite party has committed an offence u/Sec.138 of NI Act and he can be proceeded for the said offence. The copy of the cheque and the Bank memo is also produced. The memo of undertaking given by the opposite party is also produced. By the documentary evidence produced by the complainant, it is very clear that the promise made by the opposite party is false and he has violated the promise and the commitment. Therefore, he has requested for cancellation of the booking and refund the amount. The case put up by the complainant has gone unchallenged. The opposite party has not appeared and contested the matter even though served with notice. It is clear that the opposite party has no defence to make that’s why he has remained absent. By looking into the documentary evidence and the complaint averments, it is very clear that the complainant has paid Rs.1,60,000/- to the opposite party and definitely is entitled for refund of the amount with interest. The opposite party having utilised the amount of the complainant for his own purpose is bound to pay the interest. On the facts and circumstances of the case, interest at the rate of 12% p.a., would be fair, just and reasonable. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs.1,60,000/- to the complainant along with interest at 12% p.a., on the said amount from 08/04/2008 till payment/realisation. MEMBER PRESIDENT