COMPLAINT FILED:02.08.2011
DISPOSED ON:22.09.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
22nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER-2011
PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER
SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.1436/2011
Complainant | Ganapathi S.Shastri, Aged about 46 years, No.281, 20th Main, Vijayanagar, Bangalore. Advocate: In person. V/s. |
OPPOSITE PARTY | K.Shivaraja Naidu, Proprietor, Sai Sreenidhi Projects, No.4, 1st Floor, KJN Towers, 21st Main, Near BDA Complex, B.S.K. 2nd Stage, Bangalore. Placed Ex-parte., |
| |
O R D E R
Sri.B.S.REDDY,PRESIDENT
1. The complainant filed this complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction against the opposite party (herein after refer to as OP) to pay an amount of Rs.75,000/- with interest at 24% p.a. and to pay further amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 24% p.a. (totally Rs.1,75,000/-) and further to pay Rs.1,00,000/- compensation towards loss and mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the proceedings on the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
2. In spite of service of notice, OP failed to appear without any justifiable cause, hence placed ex-parte.
3.The complainant filed affidavit in support of complaint averments.
4. Arguments on complainant’s side heard.
5.We have gone through the complaint averments, the documents produced and affidavit evidence of the complainant. On the basis of these materials, it becomes clear that OP being a Developer and Builder under the name and style of M/s Sai Sreenidhi Projects, offered by advertisement to public to invest amount to get plots in the layout called “Prime City’ situated at Ittimadu Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagar South Taluk, Bangalore District. The complainant being lured away with the said advertisement approached the OP in the month of December 2006-the OP assured that the said layout will be approved by BMRDA and the conversion of land is in progress the layout will be completed within 2 years and immediately thereafter the plots will be registered. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.75,000/- by way of cheque on 25.12.2006 to the OP as an advance sale consideration to purchase the plot measuring 30 X 40 Feet, out of the total consideration of Rs.5,40,000/-. OP has issued the receipt on 28.12.2006 acknowledging the receipt of the said amount. On 27.06.2007 the complainant paid further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for the said site to the OP and OP issued the receipt acknowledging the receipt of the said amount. Thus totally the complainant has paid Rs.1,75,000/- to the OP towards part of the sale consideration. On 28.06.2007 OP has executed deed of sale agreement in respect of plot No.131 in the said layout. As per the terms and conditions of the said agreement, the balance amount has to be paid at the time of registration and the OP has to develop the said layout within 6 months from the date of agreement, failing which OP has to pay back the entire amount paid with interest at 24% p.a. Caluse-3 and 4 of the said agreement clearly goes to show that OP has agreed to refund the amount with interest at 24% p.a. if the lay out is not developed within the stipulated period of 6 months. Even after 6 months OP failed to develop the said layout on 24.06.2010 OP renewed the sale agreement with same terms and conditions for a period of further 6 months. The endorsement has been made on the back of first page of the agreement regarding extension of period of 6 months. That period was extended on 24.06.2010. Even after that period the layout was not developed, the complainant issued notice dt.01.07.2011 demanding to refund the amount with interest at 24% p.a. The said notice was duly served, OP neither replied for the said notice nor refunded the amount. The postal receipt and acknowledgments are produced by the complainant. Thus the complainant felt deficiency of service on the part of the OP.
6. There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged affidavit evidence and the documents produced by the complainant. The very fact of OP remaining ex-parte leads to draw inference to the effect that OP is admitting the complaint averments in Toto. When OP was not able to form the layout, it would have been fair enough on its part to refund the amount to the complainant. The act of OP in not developing the layout and registering the site nor refunding the amount, amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant is entitled for refund of the amount of Rs.1,75,000/- with agreed interest of 24% p.a. by way of compensation. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint filed by the complainant allowed in part.
OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- with interest at 24% p.a. from the respective date of payments till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant within 4 weeks from the date of this Order.
Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 22nd day of Septermber-2011.)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Cs.
