Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/16/788

Mrs Sudha Gopalakrishnan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Max worth Realty India ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S.N. Bhat

15 Nov 2016

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DIST.CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
8TH FLOOR,BWSSB BLDG.
K.G.ROAD,BANGALORE
560 009
 
Complaint Case No. CC/16/788
 
1. Mrs Sudha Gopalakrishnan
W/o S,Gopalakrishna BII 105,White House,R.T. Nagar Bengaluru-560032
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Max worth Realty India ltd
KMP House NO 12/2 Yamunabai Road, Madhavanagar, Bangalore -560001 R/by its Managing Director
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.SINGRI PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Shantha P.K. MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 15 Nov 2016
Final Order / Judgement

Complaint Filed on:01.06.2016

Disposed On:15.11.2016

                                                                              

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 

15th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016

 

PRESENT:-

SRI. P.V SINGRI

PRESIDENT

 

SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA

MEMBER

 

SMT. P.K SHANTHA

MEMBER


                          

COMPLAINT No.788/2016

 

 

COMPLAINANT

 

Mrs.Sudha Gopalakrishnan,

W/o S.Gopalakrishnan,

Aged 65 years,

R/at BII 105, White House,

R.T Nagar,

Bangalore-560032.

 

Advocate – Sri.S.N Bhat

 

 

 

 

V/s

 

 

 

 

 

OPPOSITE PARTy

 

Maxworth Realty India Limited.,

KMP House, No.12/2,

Yamunabai Road,

Madavanagar,

Bangalore-560001.

 

Represented by its

Managing Director.

    

 

 

O R D E R

 

SMT. SHANTHA P.K, MEMBER

 

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 amount of Rs.1,50,000/- paid by the complainant, to pay interest @ 12% from 01.08.2012 and to pay Rs.31,000/- towards damages.

 

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

 

The OP has formed a layout in the name and style ‘Max Medows’ and in the said layout the complainant had booked two sites bearing plot no.42 and 43 measuring 1800 sq. feet and 1600 sq feet respectively.  On 01.08.2012 the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- through cheque bearing no. 878463 drawn on Karnataka Bank, Basaveshwara Branch, Bangalore.  Even after the lapse of 3.5 years the OP has failed to complete the layout and register in the name of the complainant.  In the above said circumstances the complainant has written a letter dated 07/04.2016 requesting the OP to refund the advance of Rs.1,50,000/- along with the interest @ 12.50% p.a.  OP failed to respond to the letter.  Hence this complaint.

 

3. After registration of the complaint, notice was issued to OP.  Despite service of notice advocate appeared on behalf of OP and filed memo for undertaking on 16.08.2016 but failed to file power and version.  Hence OP was placed ex-parte.  The complainant filed her affidavit by way of evidence together with documents.

 

4. Perused the averments made in the complaint, affidavit filed in lieu of evidence, documents filed by the complainant and other materials placed on record.

 

5. Admittedly the complainant booked two sites on 01.08.2012 under the project ‘Max Medows’ with a dimension of 1800 sq feet and 1600 sq feet by paying a sum of Rs 1,50,000/- through cheque bearing no. 878463 drawn on Karnataka Bank, Basaveshwara Nagara Branch, Bangalore.  The complainant was allotted sites bearing no 42 and 43 for a total sale consideration amount of Rs.1,300/- per square feet.  The complainant has produced the booking form dated 01-08-2012 as Annexure-A, Receipt No. BLR/12-13/2253 dated 02-08-2012 for Rs.1,50,000/- towards the booking of sites issued by the OP to the complainant as Annexure-B, cheque bearing no 878463 dated 01-08-2012 as Annexure-C, copy  of the letter dated 07-04-2016 sent by the complainant to OP requesting to refund the advance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- along with the interest @ 12% p.a as Annexure-D as documents.

 

6. OP neither replied the notice nor refunded the advance booking amount.  The failure on the part of OP in not developing the layout and registering the sites in the name of the complainant amounts to deficiency of service.  The OP having received the advance amount, as stated above, failed to develop the layout.  Therefore, the complainant demanded OP to refund the advance amount paid by her.  Therefore, it is evident that, there is a deficiency of service on the part of OP due to irresponsible behaviour and non- performance act of OP the complainant has suffered.  The conduct of OP in not allotting and registering sites amounts to gross negligence and deficiency of in service on their part. 

 

7. The very fact of OP not contesting the proceedings leads us to draw an inference that OP is admitting the claim of the complainant.  There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged affidavit evidence of the complainant and the documents produced.  The complainant suffered inconvenience and damages due to non performance of the promise made by the OP.  The OP did not appear and contest the claim of the complainant.  We are satisfied that the complainant has proved the deficiency of service against OP.  Under the circumstances, we are of the considered view that, OP is liable to refund the advance booking amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant together with interest at 12% p.a. from 01.08.2012 till the date of realization and pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards inconvenience and hardship caused to the complainant along with litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-.  

 

8. In the result, we proceed to pass the following.

 

 

              

       O R D E R

 

 

The complaint filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant is allowed in part.  OP is directed to refund the advance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) to the complainant together with interest @ 12% p.a from 01.08.2012 till the date of realization.  Further OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards inconvenience and hardship caused together with litigation cost of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant.

 

OP shall comply the order passed by this Forum within a month from today.

 

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 15th day of November 2015)

 

 

 

MEMBER                            MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

Vln* 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COMPLAINT No.788/2016

 

 

COMPLAINANT

 

Mrs.Sudha Gopalakrishnan,

Bangalore-560032.

 

V/s

 

 

OPPOSITE PARTy

 

Maxworth Realty India Limited.,

Bangalore-560001.

 

Represented by its

Managing Director.

    

 

 

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 22.10.2016.

 

  1. Mrs.Sudha Gopalakrishnan.

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE COMPLAINANT

1)

Annexure-A is the copy of booking form of OP filled by complainant dated 01.08.2012.

2)

Annexure-B is the copy of receipt issued by OP to the complainant dated 02.08.2012.

3)

Annexure-C is the copy of cheque dated 01.08.2012 for Rs.1,50,000/-.

4)

Annexure-D is the copy of letter of complainant dated 07.04.2016.

 

 

 

          OP -       Absent

 

 

 

MEMBER                           MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

 

Vln*

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.SINGRI]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. YASHODHAMMA]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Shantha P.K.]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.