COMPLAINTS FILED ON:23.02.2012
DISPOSED ON:17.04.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
17th DAY OF APRIL-2012
PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT Nos.401 & 402/2012
Complaintno.401/2012 Complainant | Mr.Putte Gowda S/o Late Bettegowda, Aged about 66 years, R/at Flat No.342, 3rd Floor, Radiant Enclave Sun City Road, Kengeri Satellite Town, Bangalore-560 060. Adv:Sri.N.M.Nanjunde Gowda |
Complaintno.402/2012 Complainant | Vijaya Prakash S/o Putte Gowda, Aged about 36 years, R/at Flat No.342, 3rd Floor, Radiant Enclave, Sun City Road, Kengeri Satellite Town, Bangalore-560 060, Represented by his G.P.A. Holder Sri.Putte Gowda. Adv:Sri.N.M.Nanjunde Gowda V/s |
OPPOSITE PARTY/S | Mr.Bhaskar Reddy, Aged about 55 years, No.1, “Shresta”, 3d Cross, Kuvempu Nagara, Dodda Kallasandra, Kanakapura Road, Bangalore. Placed Ex-parte. |
COMMON ORDER
SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT
These complaints are filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the respective complainants seeking direction against the Op to refund the initial sale consideration paid for the sites to be allotted with interest at 24% p.a. and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
2. In spite of service of notice to OP by intimation delivered, OP failed to appear without any justifiable cause in both these complaints, hence placed ex-parte.
3.The complainants in order to substantiate complaint averments, the complainant in complaint No.401/2012 and the P.A.Holder of the complainant in complaint No.402/2012 filed affidavit evidence.
4. Arguments from complainant’s side heard.
5.We have gone through the complaint averments, the affidavit evidence and the documents produced in both these complainants. On the basis of these materials, it becomes clear that in complaint No.401/2012 the complainant became the member of OP firm and applied for site No.173 measuring 30 X 50 feet at Royal Enclave on 21.04.2006 and paid sum of Rs.1,35,000/- as advance sale consideration to OP. OP issued the receipt dt.21.04.2006 and further the complainant booked one more site bearing No.293 measuring 30 X 40 feet at Royal County on 15.02.2007 and he has paid Rs.1,58,000/- and obtained the receipt from the OP. Both these projects were to be developed by OP at Mysore, as OP is the Managing Director of these two projects. OP has executed an agreement of sale in favour of the complainant on 27.03.2007 after the payment of Rs.1,35,000/- towards initial sale consideration for the site bearing No.173 at Royal Enclave and sum of Rs.1,58,000/- towards sale consideration of site No.293 at Royal County. OP failed to complete the said projects and allot the sites. The complainant got issued legal notice dt.16.12.2007 to refund the amount with interest at 24% p.a. OP though received the said notice, neither complied the demands nor replied the notice. Thus the complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP and filed the complaint for the relief’s stated above.
6. In complaint No.402/2012 the complainant applied for site No.276 measuring 30 X 50 feet and paid an amount of Rs.70,000/- through cheque dt.21.10,2007 and obtained the receipt dt.15.11.2007 further paid Rs.2,00,000/- through cheque, on 15.11.2007, all he paid Rs.2,70,000/- to the OP and OP has executed the agreement of sale dt.14.12.2007. After receipt of the amount Op neither developed the project and allotted the site nor refunded the amount received. As per Clause13 of the agreement deed, OP shall get the approval within 180 days from the date of Gazette Notification of Master Plan and shall intimate the complainant giving an option to the complainant that he would get the sale deed registered or to opt for getting back advance amount with assured benefit of the 1/3rd of the advance amount. The legal notice was issued on 16.12.2011 calling upon OP to refund the amount with accrued benefit of the 1/3rd of the advance amount for every 6 months as per the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale dt.04.12.2007. OP in spite of receipt of the notice failed to comply the demand as such the complainant felt deficiency in service and filed the complaint seeking necessary relief’s stated above.
7. When OP was not in a position to develop the projects as assured and allot the sites it would have been fair enough on its part in refunding the amount received towards initial sale consideration. The act of OP neither developing the layouts and allotting the sites nor refunding the amount received towards initial sale consideration, amounts to deficiency in service on his part. The very fact of OP remaining ex-parte leads to draw inference that Op is admitting the claim of the complainants. There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged affidavit evidence of complainants and documents produced. The complainants are entitled for refund of initial sale consideration paid with interest at 18% p.a. by way of compensation along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- in each case. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaints filed by the complainants are allowed in part.
In complaint No.401/2012 Op is directed to refund an amount of Rs.2,93,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the respective date of payments, till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.
In complaint No.402/2012 Op is directed to refund an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the respective date of payments, till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.
This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.
Keep the original order in complaint No.401/2012 and copy there of in complaint No.402/2012.
Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.
(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 17th day of April-2012.)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Cs.
