Date of Filing:07/02/2011

        Date of Order:13/05/2011

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE -  20

Dated:  13^th DAY OF MAY 2011

PRESENT

SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT

SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO. 260 OF 2011

Sri. Chandrappa Gowda,

S/o. Late. K. Hanumappa,

Aged About 60 years,

R/at: No.75, 5^th Cross, 3^rd Main,

Hanumanthanagar,

Bangalore-19.                                                                     ….  Complainant.

V/s

(1) Sri. Kothapalli Nageshwara Rao,

S/o. Doreswamy Naidu,

Major in age, Director of

M/s. Sai Ramana Constructions Pvt. Ltd.,

Registered Office at 1^st Floor,

“Radhakrishna Sadana”,

No.119, Gandhi Bazaar Main Road,

Basavanagudi,

Bangalore-560 004.

(2) Sri Kothapalli Nageshwara Rao,

S/o. Doreswamy Naidu,

Mamedi Munigedda Village,

Chandragiri Mandala,

Chittur District, Andra Pradesh.                                     …. Opposite Parties.

BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

-: ORDER:-

The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the Opposite Party to pay Rs.6,23,000/-, are necessary:-

          In respect of a site to be formed in Survey No. 84 measuring five acres 26 guntas in Mahanthalingapura Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District, an agreement of sale was entered in to between the parties, to this complainant wherein the opposite party has agreed to sale the site for Rs.19,92,000/- on 16.08.2007 and received an advance of Rs.20,000/- on 02.08.2007, received further advance of Rs.4,03,000/- on 16.08.2007.  Thereafter the opposite party agreed to perform the contract within 60 days from the date of BMRDA releasing letter.  The opposite party did not comply with it.  Hence a notice was issued on 16.12.2010.  As it is not complied, this complaint is filed.

2.       In this case the notice to the opposite parties was served through the Indian Express Daily news paper on 30.03.2011.  In spite of that the opposite parties did not contest the proceedings throughout.  Hence the complainant has filed a Memo stating that the complaint and the documents may be read as evidence.  Heard.

3.       The points that arise for our consideration are:-

:- POINTS:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service?
2. What Order?

4.       Our findings are:-

Point (A)        :           In the Positive.

Point (B)        :           As per the final Order

                             for the following:- 

-:REASONS:-

Point A & B:-

5.       Reading the complaint in conjunction with the documents on record, it is established that an agreement of sale with respect to site No.26 in the converted land bearing Survey No.84 in the layout called as “”Fortune Lake View” in Mahanthalingapura Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore, measuring 40 x 60 Sq. ft. bounded on the east by private property, west by 60 feet road, north by site No.27, south by site No.25 has been entered in to between the parties on 16.08.2007 and the opposite parties had received in all Rs.4,23,000/- from the complainant as advance and agreed to execute the sale deed within 60 days from the date of obtaining the release order from BMRDA. It is also stated and sworn to by the complainant that in spite of that the opposite parties had neither obtained the release order nor transferred the site in his name.  The complainant has issued notice to the opposite parties on 16.12.2010.  In spite of that the opposite parties failed to execute the sale deed nor got the site released from the BMRDA.

6.       Keeping others money and utilizing it for its purpose without giving services as promised is nothing but the unfair trade practice.  In this case the opposite party has received the money from the complainant agreeing to transfer a site in his name.  But till day even after lapse of three years, in spite of notice he has not cared to reply the notice nor complied the same.  It also has not formed the layout, got it sanctioned.  Proposal to form layout remained in paper only.  Hence it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-

-: ORDER:-

1. The Complaint is Allowed-in-part.
2. The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,23,000/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 16.08.2007 until payment within 30 days from the date of this order.  Failing which it shall pay the said amount along with the compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant.
3. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards cost of this litigation.
4. The opposite parties are directed to send the amount as ordered at Serial Nos.2 & 3 above through DD by registered post acknowledgment due to the complainant and submit the compliance report to this Forum with necessary documents within 75 days.
5. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
6. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 13^th Day of May 2011)

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                           PRESIDENT