BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
APPEAL No.1606/2023
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER
Sri.Satish Soni S/o R.P.Soni,
Age: 70 years,
Resident at No.142, ... Appellant/s
3rd Phase, 8th Main,
13th Cross, Girinagar,
Bengaluru-560 085
(In person)
-V/s-
1. M.Lokappa Gowda
Age: 75 years,
Chief Executive Officer,
M/s. Swagriha Builders & Developers
No.305, Green Nest Layout,
Vajarahalli, Nelamangala,
Bengaluru-562 123
… Respondent/s
2. L.Bharath Kumar
S/o Lakkappa Gowda
Age: 45 years, Managing Partner,
M/s. Swagriha Builders & Developers
No.305, Green Nest Layout,
Vajarahalli, Nelamangala,
Bengaluru-562 123
(Respondent Nos.1&2- Exparte)
O R D E R
BY SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER
This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant being aggrieved by the order dated 11-8-2023 passed by the Rural and 1st Addl. District Consumer Commission, Bengaluru in CC.No.27/2014 and prays to set-aside the order and grant such other relief as deemed fit.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant entered into agreement of sale on 30-4-1997 with OPs to purchase site Nos.567 & 568 in Green Nest Layout each measuring 30X40ft together both measuring 2400 sq. ft. The complainant agreed to pay the site value in 59 monthly installment of Rs.2,000/- each. The OPs promised to allot sites and undertaken to provide basic amenities such as water supply, electricity, distribution of lines, metal roads, open drainage and underground sewerage lines etc., and register the sites in favour of complainant. The complainant in all has paid Rs.1,82,750/- to the OPs and he was ready to get the sale deed registered in his favour. But the OP has not at all allotted sites and not registered the same in the name of the complainant by receiving balance sale consideration if any inspite of repeated request, demands despite written letters by the complainant to the OPs. But to the dismay of the complainant, the OPs written a letter dated 10-7-2014 that he is ready to refund the amount paid for the sites and agreed to pay a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- to the complainant. At no point of time the complainant agreed to take back money instead demand for registration of site. Hence, it is alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
3. After registration of this complaint, notices were ordered to be issued to OPs. In response to the notice OPs appeared through their counsel and filed version and admitted that the OP formed layout in Vajarahalli village in the name of Green Nest and the complainant come forward to purchase the sites in installment scheme of 60 months with certain terms and conditions and the OPs executed sale agreement in favour of complainant in respect of site Nos.567 and 568 on 30-4-1997 and admitted that total cost of sites are Rs.1,82,750/- which was payable in 60 monthly installments. As per the agreement the OPs have completed the project by providing all the facilities and the members who have paid registration charges have got their sites registered right from the year 1998. The complainant has not paid the registration charges and balance of installments and cost inspite of several remainders and not got his site registered and contented that the complainant has not come forward to register the sites in his name by paying balance amount and registration charges inspite of remainders sent to complainant on 15-4-1998, 29-9-1998, 27-1-2000 and 14-7-2001. The complainant never responded to the remainders. Therefore, the sites could not be registered.
4. Further the OPs contended that lands in which the layout was formed was acquired by Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board vide notification No.CI:415:SPQ: 2005 dated 5-12-2005. Therefore, the complainant requested the OPs to refund the amount paid and agreed to receive Rs.5,50,000/- in full and final settlement, but the complainant has not come to the office to collect the same. The sites which were allotted to complainant were acquired by Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board. Therefore, the OPs are not in a position to execute the sale deed in respect of sites allotted to complainant. Hence, prays to dismiss the complaint.
5. The District Commission after hearing both sides and on perusing the pleadings of the both parties and their affidavit evidence and documents produced by them dismissed the complaint vide its order dated 29-4-2016.
6. Aggrieved by the said order the complainant has preferred Appeal No.1678/2016 before the Hon’ble State Commission. The Hon’ble State Commission vide its order dated 30-1-2023 has allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by this commission dated 29-4-2016 in CC.No.27/2014 with a direction to the District Commission to receive documents commencing from Sl.No.1 to 41 as referred in the order and provide opportunity to OPs to rebut these documents and hold an enquiry to find out the true facts to the effect on the point of entitlement for allotment of sites as agreed under sale agreement dated 30-4-1997 and to examine whether OPs are now practically difficult to allot sites in Green Nest Layout.
7. After remand of this matter, notices were ordered to be issued to both parties by the District Commission. The complainant and OPs have appeared before the District Commission and submitted that no further evidence to be adduced on behalf of complainant and on behalf of OPs.
8. After trial, the District Consumer Commission has allowed the complaint in part along with compensation and litigation expenses.
9. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal on various grounds.
10. Heard.
11. Perused the appeal memo, order passed by the District Consumer Commission, we noticed that, it is not in dispute that the appellant/complainant has entered into an agreement of sale with the OPs/respondents on 30-4-1997 to purchase the site Nos.567 and 568 in residential Green Nest Layout at Vajarahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru rural District measuring 30X40 sq.ft. each. It is also not in dispute that, the appellant has paid the above said amount in 59 monthly installments of Rs.2,000/- each i.e. Rs.1,82,750/-. The allegation of the appellant is that, in spite of payment of Rs.1,87,750/- to the OPs/respondents towards the site Nos.567 & 568, the OPs/respondents not came forwarded to perform their part of contracts to execute the sale deed, inspite of several requests, demands and writing letters.
12. Per-contra, the respondents contended that, they have completed the project by providing all the basic amenities and the members who paid the registration charges have got their sites registered right from 1998, but the appellant did not come forward to pay registration charges and balance of installments towards the sites, despite of several reminders. On 17.6.2014 the appellant wrote a letter and visited the office on 23-2-2014 and requested to refund the amount which he has paid towards the sites. The respondents have agreed to refund of Rs.5,50,000/- and further request of the appellant agreed to refund Rs.6.00 lakhs as against Rs.1,82,750/-, however, the appellant not came forward, further contended that KIADB vide their notification No.CI-415-SPQ-2005 dated 5-12-2005 acquired land in which the sites were allotted to the appellant. Hence, there is no sites are available to register the sites in the name of appellant.
13. Pursued the order passed by the District Commission, we noticed that, the appellant has filed the CC.No.27/2004 before the District Commission and the District Commission after trial dismissed the CC.No.27/2004. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant/appellant has preferred the appeal No.1678/2016 before the Hon’ble State Commission. The Hon’ble State Commission considering the documents produced by the appellant observed that the sale deed dated 8.9.2017 by which the sites which are allotted to the complainant/appellant were sold to the persons one Mr.N.Gopi and another Mr.Ganapathi J.Nayak @ Ganapathi Nayak and reminded the matter for fresh consideration. After remand the District Commission after trial passed the order on 11-8-2023 by allowing the complaint and directed the OPs/respondents to register the sale deed in respect of site Nos.567 & 568 and awarded Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs.
14. Perused the order, we noticed that the District Commission, after perusal of the document Nos.1 to 41 sent by the State Commission dated 6-6-2022 observed that the respondents have executed the sale deed dated 8-9-2017 in respect of site No.567 measuring 30X40 sq. ft. in favour of Mr.N.Gopi and sale deed dated 27-6-2018 in respect of site No.568 in favour of Mr.Ganapathi Nayak @ Ganapathi. J.Nayak which are the subject matter of the complaint and also after perusal of the notification published in Karnataka Gazette dated 5-12-2005 and layout plan of Green Nest layout, the District Commission noticed that all the land survey numbers mentioned in the layout plan have not been acquired by KIADB, but the some of the land have been acquired in the said layout and came to conclusion that the site Nos.567 and 568 were available with the respondents upto 2018-19 but the respondents have not executed the sale deed in favour of the appellant/complainant and violated the terms and conditions incorporated under the agreement of sale dated 30-4-1997 executed in favour of the appellant. The District Commission directed the OPs/respondents to execute the sale deed in favour of appellant in respect of site Nos.567 and 568 in Green Nest layout at Vajarahalli village, Kasaba hobli, Nelamangala taluk, Bengaluru Rural District by receiving the registration cost and balance consideration amount if any and other incidental charges. In the alternative if no sites are available directed the respondents/OPs to pay amount the value fixed for registration by Government of Karnataka at Vajarahalli along with Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- litigation costs. We have not agreed with the order passed by the District Commission because the complainant has paid sital amount in 1997 and entered into sale agreement. The OPs/respondents have contended that, the OPs have sent several reminder letters to pay the balance of installments and got his site registered but the appellant has not came forward and on 23-2-2014 requested for refund, however no any single document was produced by the respondents to show that the complainant/appellant has received the letters and he has agreed to take refund of Rs.6.00 lakhs. It is one sided decision taken by the respondents, for the reasons best known to them. The value of the lands escalated in rocket speed. Moreover the site which was purchased by the appellant are very much available upto 2017-18, but the respondents/OPs have not provided the same to the complainant/appellant. It is the deficiency of service on the part of the respondents.
15. If the complainant invested such amount elsewhere or other project definitely he would have got the site well within time. In Bengaluru the price of the site is doubling for every three years. The complainant has invested his hard earned money to purchase the sites. Moreover the appellant is an ex-serviceman and also senior citizen. It is the duty of respondents to take care of serviceman/ex-serviceman and their family who served for the country. The District Commission also failed to consider these all facts. The District Commission has arrived on the conclusion that the site Nos. 567 and 568 was sold by the OPs/respondents in 2017-18 then the purpose will not serve to give direction to register the sale deed in respect of site Nos.567 and 568. Moreover, after service of notice, the respondents have not appeared before this Commission which is the negligence on the part of the respondents. The appellant has produced copy obtained under RTI regarding availability of site measuring 2400sq.ft. in Opposition to Swagriha Builders and Developers, Green Nest Layout in Khata No.70 site No.753 of Vajarahalli village, Kasaba hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District also produced Vijaya Karnataka Daily News paper article dated 4-11-2023 which shows that the rate of sits in Nelamangala town are available at Rs.2499/- per sq.ft. then it is right to direct the OPs/respondents to allot the alternative site measuring 2400sq.ft. situated in Green Nest layout at Vajarahalli village, Kasaba hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District or any other OPs project within 60 days to the complainant/appellant by receiving the registration cost and balance consideration amount if any. If failed, it is right to direct the OPs/respondents to refund the present market value of the site at Rs.2499/- per sq.ft. to the extent of 2400sq.ft. to the complainant the market value of the site Nos.567 and 568 to the complainant/appellant along with compensation and litigation costs. Accordingly the appeal is disposed off and the order passed by the District Consumer Commission is hereby modified. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R
The appeal is hereby disposed off with modification.
The impugned order dated 11-8-2023 passed by the Bengaluru Rural and 1st Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru in CC.No.27/2014 is modified as under;
The OPs/Respondents are directed to allot the alternative site measuring 2400sq.ft. situated in Green Nest layout at Vajarahalli village, Kasaba hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District or any other OPs project within 60 days to the complainant/appellant by receiving the registration cost and balance consideration amount if any.
If failed, it is right to direct the OPs/respondents to refund the present market value of the site at Rs.2499/- per sq.ft. to the extent of 2400 sq.ft. to the complainant.
Further the OPs/Respondents are directed to pay compensation of Rs.2.00 lakhs for deficiency in service and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.
Further the OPs/Respondents are directed to comply the above order within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Commission.
Lady Member Judicial Member
