O R D E R SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT: The grievance of the complainant against the Op in brief is, that influenced by the media advertisement issued by the Ops offering to provide residential sites with gifts, he approached Op No.4 and chosen plot No.463 and 464 measuring 1200 sq. ft each paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each to each of those site to Op No.1 through cheques. Op No.4 had issued receipts on behalf of Op No.1. Then he also issued two more cheques towards balance amount for Rs.2,33,000/- each in favour of Op No.1 through crossed cheques. They were handed over to the executives of Op No.4 on 02/08/2008 and obtained receipts. That he was told that within 6 months the sites will be provided but after waiting for more than 6 months and contact through phone, Ops did not show any layout nor responded to him. Then when he approached the Op for refund of his money, Op No.4 issued 6 post dated cheques, out of which 3 cheques for Rs.1.00 lakhs each and two cheques for Rs.1,33,000/- each and on presentation of the cheques were bounced. Thereafter, despite approach and requests, Ops have not either allotted sites or refunded money and therefore, has prayed for a direction to Ops No.1 to 3 to pay Rs.6,66,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a with future interest. 2. Notices were sent to Ops on this complaint, Op No.3 was duly served, remained absent is set ex-parte. Notices of Ops No.1, 2 and 4 are returned with a postal shara ‘as not claimed’. Notices to those Ops deemed to have been served as they remained absent and are set ex-parte. 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence reproducing what he has stated in his complaint. The complainant along with complaint has produced copies of receipts issued by the first Op after receipt of cheque given by the complainant and also produced copies of bank challans. We have heard the complainant who is in person and perused the records. 4. On perusal of the complaint allegations, affidavit evidence with copies of some documents they prove that complainant had agreed to purchase two plots from first Op and in all paid Rs.6,66,000/- towards part consideration of those sites. Op No.4 found to have acted on behalf of Op No.1 even received certain amounts on behalf of Op No.1 and when the complainant approached Op No.4 he appeared to had issued cheques for re-payment of the money and they came to be bounced. It is further found, despite, the first Op entered into an agreement with the complainant to transfer title of two plots, thereafter did not responded to the call of the complainant. The Ops therefore found to have made false promise to the complainant in providing two plots and after receipt of certain consideration neglected to keep up their promise and even to refund the complainant’s money. Ops who have been given opportunity to appear and defend the action of the complainant have not cared to appear. Ops 1 and 2 are one and the same. Ops No.1 is the firm represented by its Managing Director namely Ashfak Ahamad. Op No.2 is sued in his individual capacity. Op No.3 is shown as Director of Op No.1. Therefore, all the Ops in our view found to have transacted with the complainant but failed to render their service. As such, we find no reasons to discard the claim of the complainant. As the result, we pass the following order. O R D E R Complaint is allowed. Ops 1, 3 and 4 are jointly and severally held as deficient in their service, are directed to refund Rs.6,66,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of receipt of payment till those amounts are refund. Ops 1, 3 and 4 are directed to refund that money with interest within 60 days from the date of this order. Ops 1, 3 and 4 shall also pay cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant. Dictated to the Stenographer got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the Open forum on this the 9th November 2010. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
| | [HONORABLE Ganganarsaiah] Member[HONORABLE Sri D.Krishnappa] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE Anita Shivakumar. K] Member | |
