Karnataka

StateCommission

CC/295/2016

Chandra Parthasarathy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Godrej Properties Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Ganesh Kumar R

27 Oct 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE

 

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021

 

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADIG.RAMESH : PRESIDENT

MR.K.B.SANGANNAVAR                                   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

MRS.DIVYASHREEM.                                       : MEMBER

 

Consumer Complaint No. 295/2016

 

Mrs. Chandra Parthasarathy No.104, 17 B Main, HAL II Stage Indiaranagar Bangalore 560 008   (By Sri. Ganesh Kumar R.) V/s	….…Complainant
Godrej Properties Ltd. Rep. by Pirojsha Godrej Managing Director Godrej One, 5th Floor Pirojshanagar Eastern Express Highway Vikhroli (East), Mumbai   Also at No.80, Hulkul Ascent 2nd Cross, Lavelle Road Bangalore 560 001   (By Sri. Raamprasad B.S.)	…..…Opposite party

O R D E R

 

BY HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADIG.RAMESH,PRESIDENT

 

This is a complaint filed under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction to the OP to pay a sum of Rs.54,66,022/- as being the amount due the principal Rs.23,18,127/- and compound interest calculated at 10% p.a..

2. It is the case of the complainant that OP in the business of sale and construction of residential flats and being a real estate property developer approached and lured the complainant for purchase of flat which was under construction.  The complainant signed an agreement of sale with the OP dated 01.09.2007 and was also required to make payments as per Schedule E of the Agreement for sale.  Complainant had paid Rs.22,07,705/- being 37% of the total consideration inclusive of proportionate VAT as on 30.09.2007.  In addition to this complainant availed loan from Citibank and paid a sum of Rs.12.00 lakhs and totally a sum of Rs.34,07,705/- was paid to the OP.  It is further contended that as a case was registered against husband of the complainant in Spl.C.C.130/2008 and all her financial resources came to be frozen at the instance of the CBI, complainant vide letter dated 20.02.2008 pleaded her inability to make any further payments even before any demand note was raised and sought for cancellation of allotment of flat.  OP told to approach them after termination of the prosecution proceedings in the Special Court initiated by the CBI.  It is further stated that on acquittal in Spl.C.C.130/2008 and after several approaches for refund of amount paid, OP issued a communication dated 13.10.2016 stating that amount paid by the complainant stands forfeited by referring to Clause 10 of the allotment letter which is non-existent.  Thus, alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the OP complaint is filed.
3. The OP in its version admitted agreement of sale entered between complainant and OP for purchase of flat and payment of Rs.12,07,705/- on 08.08.2007 and Rs.10.00 lakhs on 30.08.2007.  It is also admitted that under tripartite agreement dated 24.09.2007 Citibank has paid an amount of Rs.12.00 lakhs and in total a sum of Rs.34,07,705/- has been paid by the complainant.  It is pleaded that the complainant without going further to make payments as per the agreed schedule, opted to cancel the allotment and sale agreement.  In the mean time Citibank issued notice dated 02.05.2014 to the OP for cancellation of the apartment allotted to the complainant and refund the outstanding of loan amount to Rs.26,10,520.79.  OP as per request of complainant for cancellation of the flat and Citibank’s letter dated 06.08.2014 accepting proposal for settlement vide letter dated 19.09.2014 sent an amount of Rs.10,91,750/- as full and final settlement towards the loan.  It is further pleaded that complainant approached OP though e-mail stating that her husband was acquitted in the criminal case and now she was interested to resolve the issue as the termination agreement which was yet to be made and to finally sell the flat and realize the money.  After perusal of the records it was noticed by the OP that the agreement of sale was terminated by forfeiting the earnest money after settling the accounts with the Citibank.  Thus, denying all other allegations OP sought dismissal of complaint.
4. Complainant filed her affidavit evidence.  On behalf of OP affidavit evidence of Assistant Manager (Legal) of OP company filed her affidavit evidence and got marked Ex.R1 to R14. 
5. None appears for the OP.  Heard the counsel for complainant.
6. Perused the contents of complaint and version.  Further perused paragraph 15 wherein pleaded as to the cause of action for the complaint and the relief sought is to direct OP to pay a sum of Rs.54,66,022/- as being the amount due on the principal (Rs.23,18,127/-) and compound interest calculated at 10% p.a. and reasonably equivalent to Rs.31,47,895/-.  In such circumstances, in considering the documents produced along with complaint in particular copy of judgement dated 27.05.2016 passed in Spl.C.C.130/2008, question of forfeiture of the amount paid by the complainant by OP does not arise at all.  Further we do not see any reason for not granting any reliefs sought by the complainant.  Accordingly, proceed to allow the complaint directing OP to refund Rs.23,18,127/- along with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of complaint till realisation.
7. The OP is directed to pay the amount within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

 

PRESIDENT

JUDICIAL MEMBER

MEMBER

CV*