BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 03^rd DAY OF OCTOBER 2016

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party (herein after referred as OP) with a prayer to direct the OP to refund him a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- together with interest @ 24% p.a and cost of the proceedings etc.

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

The complainant while serving at Gorakhpur Air Force station visited Bangalore, during which time he was attracted by a residential layout to be developed by the OP and accordingly booked a site bearing No.204.  That the complainant initially paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on 10^th September 2012 by way of cheque towards the advance amount and subsequently paid Rs.1,00,000/- more in the month of February/March 2013.  During his visit in the month of August 2013, the complainant visited Bangalore and tried to contact the OP but he was not available and thereafter complainant made several communications with OP to know the status of the residential layout and also requested OP to send him photographic evidence regarding the progress made in the project.  However, OP did not respond.  That since after the booking the OP neither delivered the site nor refunded the advance amount paid by him.  OP also did not respond to several phone calls made by the complainant.  He also did not respond to several e-mails sent by complainant to enquire about the said layout.  That the conduct of OP in not responding to the phone calls and e-mails of the complainant and his conduct in not delivering possession of the site and executing a registered sale deed by receiving balance amount, amounts to grave deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  Therefore the complainant requested OP to refund his advance amount paid.  That the OP though promised to refund the amount but failed to do so.  Thereafter the complainant got issued notice dated 02.03.2014 calling upon the OPs to refund his advance amount with interest to which also OP did not respond.  Therefore, complainant having no other choice approached this Forum.

3. OP in response to the notice, entered his appearance through his advocate and filed his version admitting the transaction between himself and the complainant in regard to sale of site measuring 30x40 and also admitted receipt of advance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and further contended as under:

That the OP never failed to respond to any of the calls made by the complainant and he apprised the complainant regarding difficulty in forming of the layout.  He also informed about certain technical hiccups as a result of which there was delay in getting approval of the layout from the competent authority.  That due to such delays the OP has been put to great hardship and financial constrains.  That on the request made by the complainant, OP agreed to refund the booking amount as per mutually agreed terms.  That the complainant however insisted to pay interest @ 24% p.a on the said advance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and even insisted for payment of Rs.6,00,000/-.  That the complainant is not entitled either to interest @ 24% or Rs.6,00,000/- as claimed by him.  That OP is even now willing to refund a advance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- if complainant agrees to accept the same as full and final settlement of his claim by surrendering all the original documents.  That the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed by him.  Therefore, OP prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4. The points that arise for our determination in this case are as under:

        5. Both the parties have tendered their evidence by way of affidavit and also relied on documents in support of their case.  Both the parties have submitted their written arguments.  Also heard the oral arguments advanced by the parties.

6. Our answer to the above points are as under:

REASONS

7.  The transaction between the parties is admitted so also the payment of Rs.3,00,000/- by the complainant to OP towards purchase of a site in a layout to be developed by the OP.  The complainant has produced the copies of receipt issued by OP for having paid Rs.3,00,000/- advance consideration amount.  OP also admits that he could not develop the said layout called as ‘Samruddhi Enclave’ within the time promised because of certain technical problems and because of failure to obtain approvals from certain government departments.  The admission on the part of OP certainly goes to establish that he has failed to develop the said residential layout within the time stipulated and within the time agreed by him.  It is also admitted that even till today the said layout has not been developed and ready for allotment.

8. Though OP expresses his readiness to refund the advance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- but he never made any attempts to refund that amount to the complainant despite his several reminders and legal notice and there is no satisfactory answer from OP for his failure to refund the advance amount when requested by the complainant.  The complainant has produced the hard copies of several e-mail communications made to OP to substantiate that time and again he sent several e-mails to OP requesting him to refund the advance amount.  Even though there was dispute regarding payment of interest on the said amount, OP atleast should have refunded the principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant immediately after he demanded the same.  However for the reasons best known to him OP even after filing of this complaint failed to refund the said advance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant, to show his sincerity.

9. The conduct of OP in not developing the said residential layout within the time promised and thereafter his failure to refund the advance amount despite repeated reminders and legal notice issued by the complainant amounts to grave deficiency of service.  The said conduct of OP must have put the complainant to great hardship, inconvenience and mental agony.  OP has absolutely no right to retain the said sum of Rs.3,00,000/- all these years knowing fully well that he is unable to develop the said ‘Samruddhi Enclave’.  Therefore OP has to be directed to refund the said amount together with interest @ 18% p.a and also a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency of service resulting in hardship, inconvenience and mental agony to the complainant together with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

10. The order could not be passed within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency. 

11. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is allowed in part.  OP is directed to refund a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant together with interest @ 18% p.a from the date of actual receipt till the date of realization.  Further he shall pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency of service resulting in hardship, inconvenience and mental agony to complainant together with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

OP shall comply the said order within four weeks from the date of communication of this order.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 03^rd day of October 2016)

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 06.05.2015.

1. Sri.Arvind Sharma

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party dated 04.07.2015.

1. Sri.Hanuman H.V.  

Documents produced by the Opposite Party - Nil

  MEMBER                           MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

   Vln*