COMPLAINT FILED:31.07.2010
DISPOSED ON:16.01.2012.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
16th DAY OF JANUARY 2012
PRESENT :-SRI. B.S.REDDY PRESIDENT
SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINANT | Jatendhar Bhat, #303, Ramaiah Mansion, 2nd Main, Pai Layout, Bangalore-560 016. Inperson. V/s. |
OPPOSITE PARTIES | 1. Granity Properties Pvt. Ltd., # 43, 3rd Cross, 10th “A” Main Road, Indiranagar, 2nd Stage, Bangalore-560 038. Rep. by Mr.Ashfak Ahmed, Managing Director, Granity Properties Pvt.Ltd., Placed Ex-parte. 2. Ashfak Ahmed, MD of Granity Properties, 74, Masjid Road, Krishnarajapuram Post, Bangalore. Adv:Sri.Balaram Law Firm 3. Aajaz Ahmed, Director of Granity Properties, 74, Jahangir Manjil, Masjid Road, Krishnarajapuram, Bangalore. Placed Ex-parte. 4. Shri Vijay Tata Ravipathi, Sole Proprietor, Orange Properties, 114/1, Tirumala Towers, Banaswadi Outer Ring Road, Opp.to ASR Kalyanamantap, Bangalore-560 043. Placed Ex-parte. |
| | | |
O R D E R
SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT
The complainant filed this complaint U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 seeking direction against the Opposite Parties (herein after called as O.Ps) to refund an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. by Ops 1 to 3 and compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to be paid by OP4 along with costs of the proceedings.
2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows:
The complainant having come to know the colorful advertisement in all leading newspapers, regarding the ‘European Township’ project launched at Hirandahalli, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk of Old Madras Road, visited the spot as he was taken to the site in the month of August-2008. A spectacular Mela for booking of sites was in progress under the supervision of one Pericho Prabhu, Vice President of Orange Properties. A colorful brochure was given to the complainant. The layout plan was shown. The executive from the Granity Properties showed the layout plan and complainant booked the plot No.182 measuring 40 X 60 feet and paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- through cheque dt.26.09.2008. OP1 issued the receipt, the executive of the Granity properties asked the complainant to come to enter into the agreement as and when called. After few days when the complainant approached OP1 for the agreement, they demanded rest of the amount and get the agreement done. The complainant got the doubt and enquired about it with other investors and came to know that granity and orange properties together have cheated the investors of European Township. The complainant did not make any further payment. OP1 promised to return the entire amount paid with interest at 12% p.a. in the event of failure to obtain the necessary approvals from the BDA within 3 months. The complainant sensed some foul play being played by OP1 and Orange Properties and went to OP1 found that office was closed from November-2008.
3. OP4 has misled the complainant by widely publishing in all leading newspapers, misrepresenting the facts of the case inducing the complainant to book the site, thereby indulging in unfair trade practice. OP4 is the Proprietor of Orange Properties and Orange Holidays indulged in breach of trust by issuing post dated cheques to lot of people which eventually bounced. OP2 is the Managing Director of OP1 and OP3 is the Director of OP1. OP1 to 3 had taken the amount from the complainant. The Ops failed to fulfill their obligation of allotting the site, as such the complainant felt deficiency in service and filed this complaint seeking the relief’s stated above.
4. On appearance, OP2 filed version contending that the complainant has no case against OP2, all the grievances are against OP4. The transactions are with OP4, later OP2 received the cheque from the OP4. OP2 is not responsible for any acts that the complainant had with OP4. The complainant has received the post dated cheque by rescinding the agreement from OP4, thereby the alleged contract if any with OP4, the Ops shall be discharged on this ground. It is not within the knowledge of this OP about the alleged advertisements in all leading newspaper, about the project. As admitted by the complainant alleged agreement for sale supposedly executed by this OP have been handed over to the complaint by OP4, this OP has not handed over the same to OP4. OP4 not only cheated the complainant but also other investors and also this OP. The complainant can approach the Eivil Court to adjudicate its cause. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. Ops 1, 3 & 4 remained ex-parte.
6. The complainant in order to substantiate the complaint averments filed affidavit evidence. OP2 filed affidavit evidence in support of defence version.
7. Arguments on both sides heard.
8. In view of the above said facts the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:
Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved
the deficiency in service on the part of
the OPs?
Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is
entitled for the relief’s now claimed?
Point No. 3 :- To what Order?
9. We record our findings on the above points:
Point No.1:- Affirmative
Point No.2:- Affirmative in part
Point No.3:- As per final Order.
R E A S O N S
10. From the complaint averment and affidavit evidence of the complainant, it becomes clear that OP1 is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act-1956. OP2 and 3 are the Managing Director and Director respectively of OP1. OP4 is the Sole Proprietor of M/s Orange Properties, the proprietary concern purportedly engaged in business of development, promotion and marketing of real estate projects, including the promotion and development of residential township and sale of sites therein to consumers. OP-4 through his proprietary concern M/s Orange Properties widely advertised in several leading newspapers and hoardings displayed in prominent parts of Bangalore City, proclaiming that they were promoting and developing a ‘European Township’ a residential township, wherein sites would be sold to members of public. The copy of the brochures brought out in respect of the said project produced by the complainant contains the details of the project. Based on these advertisements and brochures, the complainant booked the plot No.182 measuring 40 X 60 feet and paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- through cheque dt.26.09.2008, OP1 issued the receipt, OPs 1 to 3 failed to form any layout and fulfill their obligations, as such the complainant demanded to refund the amount paid with interest at 12% p.a. Ops failed to obtain any approval from BDA and has not acquired any land for the purpose of proposed layout. Ultimately, the complainant found that the office of the OP1 to 4 was closed from November-2008. The copy of the cheque dt.26.09.2008 for Rs.2,00,000/- issued in favour of OP1 marked as Annexure-4 and copy of the receipt issued by OP1 marked as Annexure-3 clearly goes to show that Ops 1 to 3 have received the amount from the complainant. The acts of Ops neither developing the layout and fulfilling their obligations nor refunding the amount received towards advance sale consideration, amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
11.There is no merit in the contention of OP2 that the transaction is only between the complainant and OP4 and OP4 has issued cheque in favour of the complainant towards refund of the amount. In our opinion, OP4 has only advertised the project, no amount has been directly paid by the complainant to OP4. Further the defence that OP4 not only cheated the complainant but also other investors and OPs1 to 3 cannot be a ground to escape the liability from paying the amount. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that OPs1 to 3 are liable to refund the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of payment i.e.,26.09.2008 till the date of realization.
12.The relief claimed against OP4 is to award compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- in causing mental agony and harassment, as OP4 has misled the complainant by widely publishing in all leading newspapers, misrepresenting the facts, inducing the complainant to book the site, thereby indulging in unfair trade practice. In our view, OP4 made this complainant to part with huge amount towards booking of the site in the proposed project of OPs1 to 3. Knowing well that OPs1 to 3 have not acquired any land and they were not in possession of any of the properties. Thus the complainant was made to suffer mental agony and harassment on account of the act of OP4, as such OP4 is liable to pay compensation. The compensation claimed at Rs.1,50,000/- is exaggerated claim, taking into consideration of all the facts and circumstances, it would meet the ends of justice by awarding compensation of Rs.25,000/-.
13.The learned counsel for the OP2 produced copy of the orders passed in Criminal Petition No.3871/2009 wherein OP2 has challenged the cases registered against him by CCB Police with regard to the same project. It is contended that OP2 has deposited entire amount to be refunded to the investors before the Hon’ble High Court. In our view, there is no material produced to show that the name of this complainant is also shown in the list of investors furnished to the Hon’ble High Court and the amount deposited covers the amount now claimed in this complaint. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.
Ops 1 to 3 are directed to refund an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 26.09.2008 till the date of realization and OP-4 is directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant. Ops 1 to 4 are directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.
This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of this order.
Send the copy of this order to both the parties free of cost.
(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 16th day of JANUARY-2012.)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Cs.
