Complaint filed on: 26-07-2010 Disposed on: 30-11-2010 BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052 C.C.No.1731/2010 DATED THIS THE 30th NOVEMBER 2010 PRESENT SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT SRIGANGANARASAIH, MEMBER SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER Complainant: - P.Ramachandran # 182, 4th Cross, Niranthara Layout, Kattigenahalli, Bagalur Road, Yelahanka, Bangalore-64 V/s Opposite parties: - 1. Granity Properties Pvt. Ltd., Represented by Mr. Ashfak Ahmed Managing Director 43, 3rd Cross, 10th A Main Indiranagar 2nd Stage Indiranagar, Bangalore-560 038 2. Ashfak Ahmed Managing Director Granity Properties Pvt. Ltd, 74, Masjid Road Krishnarajapuram Post Bangalore 3. Aajaz Ahmed, Director Granity Properties Pvt. Ltd, 74, Jahngir Manjil Masjid Road, Krishnarajapuram Bangalore 4. Shri Vijay Tata Ravipathi Sole Proprietor Orange Properties 114/1, Tirumala Towers Banaswadi Outer Ring Road Opp. to ASR Kalyanamantap Bangalore-560 043 O R D E R SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT., Brief facts of the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties are, based on the advertisement issued by the Ops in formation of European township project at Hirandahalli, Bidarahalli hobli, Bangalore east taluk, he intended to buy a plot and booked plot No.313 measuring 30 X 40 Sq. ft and he has paid a sum of Rs.3,37,500/- in three installments. The Executives of OP No.1 represented by its MD OP-2 has even executed an agreement of sale on 10-9-2008 agreeing to sale the said plot. Ops had promised getting conversion and approval of BDA within three months from the date of agreement and development would be completed within 12 months. Thereafter he waited for long time, but Ops did not show any progress, they insisted upon for his money with interest. That one Chandrasekharan an executive of OP No.4 was dealing in way all the Ops with them and he was given post dated cheques for refund of Rs.1,00,000/- leaving the balance of Rs.1,37,500/-. Then he will present those cheques issued by OP No.4, they were bounced and Ops did not arrange to repay the money paid by him. Contending that OP No.4 has misled him as a sole proprietor of OP No.4 acting on behalf of other Ops and the Ops who promised to provide a site have failed and therefore has prayed for a direction to the OP No.1, 2 and 3 to pay his amount Rs.3,37,500/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of agreement till that amount is repaid and also to award compensation Rs.3,00,000/- with costs. 2. Notices were ordered against the Ops, OP No.3 is duly served, notice of OP No.4 is returned with a postal shara as intimated delivered notice on these Ops was held sufficient as remained absent are set exparte. Then notice ordered against the OP No.2 was returned as not claimed. Hence notice held as sufficient and the said Op remained absent is set exparte. As the complainant did not furnish the correct address and step against the OP No.1. Complaint against OP No.1 is dismissed. 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence contending that he is not got his money back and has prayed for relief. The complainant alongwith complaint has produced copies of money paid receipts and then copy of agreement of sale. We have heard the complainant who is in person and perused the records. 4. The complaint allegations and documents produced by the complainant established that OP No.1 represented by its managing director namely 2nd OP entered into an agreement of sale on 10-9-2010 with the complainant agreeing to sell the plot No.313 for a total consideration of Rs.13,50,000/- and received an advance amount Rs.3,37,500/- which is acknowledge in this documents. The 1st OP it is further found that under agreement assured the complainant of completing the development works within 12 months from the date signing the agreement and further agreed to pay interest on the amount paid while refunding it. In the event of his failure to take the approval of BDA, the complainant further stated that despite lapse of period agreed under agreement and approaches with the Ops, they have failed to make any progress. Therefore he demanded for refund of his money under produced a copy of letter he had addressed to the 1st OP. All these documents and material placed before us unerringly prove the transaction as stated by the complainant. The Ops it is found that they have not responded to the letter of the complainant and even to the notice of this forum. 5. The complainant has further stated that OP No.4 who is part of his transaction acted on behalf of OP No.1 and 2 issued two cheques for refund of Rs.2,00,000/- but they are bounced and thereby claimed the entire amount. We do not under this circumstance find any reasons to discard the claim of the complainant. The complainant has claimed for relief from OP No.1 to 3 with interest at 12% per annum, these Ops are bound interest as agreed on the amount paid by the complainant. Thus we hold that the complaint is deserves to be allowed against the OP No.2 and 3. As the complaint against OP No.1 is said to be one of the director of OP No.2, thus we pass the following order: ORDER Complaint is allowed against OP No.2 and 3. Thus Ops are jointly and severally hold as deficient are directed to refund Rs.3,37,500/- to the complainant with interest at 12% per annum from the date of agreement dated 10-9-2008 until that amount is repaid. OP No.2 and 3 shall also pay cost of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant. Complaint against OP No.4 is dismissed. Dictated to the Stenographer, Got it transcribed and corrected, Pronounced on the Open Forum on this 30th November 2010. Member Member President
| | [HONORABLE Ganganarsaiah] Member[HONORABLE Sri D.Krishnappa] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE Anita Shivakumar. K] Member | | 
