THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF JUNE, 2024
APPEAL NO.40/2023
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER
M/s.Tapovan Projects,
Corporate office at #1546,
C&D Block, Kuvempunagar, ...Appellant/s
Mysuru-570 023
Represented by its
Authorized representative
Mr.Ajay Kumar.M.R.
(By Sri.Siddharth.P.Desai, Advocate)
-Versus-
Mr.Aloysius Abraham,
S/o Colonel Saveri Raj Abraham,
Aged about 65 years ... Respondent/s
Residence #301/302,
Highland Park Apartment,
6th Main, 6th Cross,
VV Mohalla, Mysore-570 002
(By Sri.M.S.Basavaraju, Advocate)
O R D E R
BY SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Opposite Party in complaint No.257/2020 has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Commission, Mysuru which directed this appellant to pay an amount of Rs.52.00 lakhs with 12% interest per annum from the date of complaint and Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses and submits that the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission by alleging deficiency in service in not handing over the Villa as per the agreement well within time after receiving the amount. The District Commission after trial allowed the complaint and directed this appellant to pay the above said amount.
2. The order passed by the District Commission is not in accordance with law. The complainant has taken the possession of the villa as per the agreement and there is a delay providing a possession the complainant due to force majeure reason. MUDA has issued completion certificate on 14-9-2017 thereafterwards they have handed over the possession to the complainant and sale deed also executed in favour of the complainant dated 3.10.2018 itself, suppressing these facts the complainant approached the District Commission and sought for payment nearly Rs.60.00 lakhs, the reason for claiming such huge amount. Merely for delay, the complainant cannot sought for the amount paid towards purchase of the said villa. There are certain works yet to complete and if the respondent cooperates they ready to complete the works as per the agreement. Hence there is no deficiency of service. Hence, prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission, in the interest of justice and equity.
3. Heard from both sides.
4. Perusal of the certified copy of the order, memorandum of appeal, it is an admitted fact that this appellant had executed a sale deed in favour of respondent/ complainant in the year 2018 itself. Thereafterwards in the year 2020 the complainant approached the District Commission alleging deficiency in service in not completing the work as per the agreement and sought for claim to the tune of Rs.60.00 lakhs.
5. The District Commission after trial directed this appellant to pay Rs.52.00 lakhs with 12% interest per annum and also awarded Rs.50,000/- compensation and Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony. The award passed by the District Commission is not in accordance with law, when the sale deed was executed way back in the year 2018. The District Commission ought to consider that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider, for the particular repayment of the entire consideration amount.
6. The District Commission has no power to cancel the sale deed and direct for payment of the entire amount paid by the complainant. The reasons assigned in the order are not satisfactory to justify the award amount. Anyhow during the course of arguments, this appellant has undertaken to complete the pending work in the Villa. Considering the same, we are of the opinion that, the order passed by the District Commission requires to be set aside and for the delay and not completing the work, we consider an award of Rs.2.00 lakhs is just and proper for non-completing the pending construction well within time as per the agreement. As such the order passed by the District Commission is modified hereunder and accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R
The Appeal is disposed off with the modification.
The impugned order dated 22-11-2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysuru in CC.No.257/2020 is modified as under;
The Opposite Party/Appellant is directed to complete the pending works within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and also directed to pay Rs.2.00 lakhs compensation for delay in completing the construction work within 30 days. If the Opposite Party/Appellant failed to comply the above order within 30 days, the complainant/respondent is entitled to get 12% interest per annum on the said amount till completion of work or realization.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.
Member Judicial Member
