Mr.V.Bhaskar Reddy, Managing Partner, V/S Mrs.B.V.Leelavathi - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/08/2866

Mrs.B.V.Leelavathi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr.V.Bhaskar Reddy, Managing Partner, - Opp.Party(s)

In person

04 Apr 2009

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/2866

Mrs.B.V.Leelavathi						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Mr.V.Bhaskar Reddy, Managing Partner, Mr.T.R.Reddy, Managing Partner, Mr.Namdevganesh,Office Assistant Mr.Ravikumar, Office Assistant						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

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.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 31.12.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 04th APRIL 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2866/2008 COMPLAINANT Mrs. B.V. Leelavathi, W/o. Dr. D.N. Nagaraj, Shiva Prasad, 5th Main, Ashoka Nagar, Tumkur 572 103. V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Mr. V. Bhaskar Reddy, Managing Partner, Presidency Group, Township Promoters, Regd. Office, 895/1, SKANDA, 14th Crosss, Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore 560 086. 2. Mr. T.R. Reddy, Managing Partner, Presidency Group, Township Promoters, Regd. Office, 895/1, SKANDA, 14th Crosss, Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore 560 086. 3. Mr. Namdevganesh, Office Assistant, Aishwarya Projects Township Promoters, H.O. #717, 2nd Floor, Poornashashi Complex, Modi Hospital Road, 2nd Stage, West of Chord Road, Basaveshwara Nagar, Bangalore 560 086. 4. Mr. Ravikumar, Office Assistant, Aishwarya Projects Township Promoters, H.O. #717, 2nd Floor, Poornashashi Complex, Modi Hospital Road, 2nd Stage, West of Chord Road, Basaveshwara Nagar, Bangalore 560 086. Advocate (H.B. Udaykumar) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant being lured away with the advertisement and publicity issued by the OP, who claims to be the developers and promoters of residential layout consisting of plots of various dimensions in their project Global Citi Layout, thought of purchasing one plot of her choice. Complainant selected plot No. 549 measuring 30 X 50 feet. OP agreed to sell the said plot at the rate of Rs.750/- per sq. feet. Then complainant made the part payment of Rs.3,75,000/- agreeing to pay the remaining value at the time of registration. An agreement came to be executed on 22.05.2007. On 24.06.2008 when complainant visited the layout site, she was shocked to note that there were no developmental activities at all, the layout was not formed. Then immediately she contacted the OP, OP expressed its inability to complete the said project on some flimsy grounds, then refunded only Rs.1,00,000/-. Though complainant invested her hard earned money, she is unable to reap the fruits of her investment. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to compensate her and refund the amount, went in futile. Thus she felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP they are unable to get the conversion order from the concerned statutory authority for the formation of the said layout. With all fairness they refunded Rs.1,00,000/- out of Rs.3,75,000/- received from the complainant. OP is ready to refund the remaining amount, because of financial crisis, global economic crisis and the loss in the business, they are unable to refund the same in time. The claim of the complainant with regard to the interest as well as damages is highly imaginary. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard. 4. 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 OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant booked a plot No. 549 in the project floated by the OP in the name and style Global Citi Layout, K.R. Puram and paid Rs.3,75,000/- as 1/3 value of the said plot. OP entered into a sale agreement and acknowledged the receipt of the same. The grievance of the complainant is that on 24.06.2008 she visited the alleged layout. But to her utter shock and surprise, there were no developmental activities at all, project is not completed nor it is approved by the statutory authority. Hence she demanded the OP to refund her money and pay compensation. 7. As against this it is contended by the OP that because of want of conversion order from the statutory authority, they are unable to complete the said project. OP fairly admits that they have not completed the said project. When that is so, with all fairness they should have refunded the entire amount to the complainant. When they failed to obtain the conversion order is not known. OP collected the huge amount in the month of May 2007 and retained it without forming the layout, thereafter refunded only Rs.1,00,000/- on insistence made by the complainant. Why OP retained the remaining Rs.2,75,000/- is not known. OP admits that they are liable to pay remaining amount of Rs.2,75,000/-. 8. Having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the admitted facts OP having retained the said huge amount without forming the layout accrued the wrongful gain to self, thereby caused the wrongful loss to the complainant, that too for no fault of her. Though complainant invested her hard earned money, she is unable to reap the fruits of her investment because of the hostile attitude of the OP. We are satisfied that there is a proof of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. OP came forward with a lame excuse that due to global economic crisis and depreciation as well as loss in the business they are prevented from refunding the amount. This defence is tainted with crocodile tears with ulterior motive. 9. As already observed by us, because of the negligence on the part of the OP complainant is put to greater hardship, prejudice and inconvenience. Under such circumstances she is entitled for the refund of the remaining amount of Rs.2,75,000/- along with interest, token of compensation and litigation cost. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.2,75,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from June 2007 till realization and pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 04th day of April 2009.) MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

COMPLAINT FILED: 31.12.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 04th APRIL 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2866/2008 COMPLAINANT Mrs. B.V. Leelavathi, W/o. Dr. D.N. Nagaraj, Shiva Prasad, 5th Main, Ashoka Nagar, Tumkur 572 103. V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Mr. V. Bhaskar Reddy, Managing Partner, Presidency Group, Township Promoters, Regd. Office, 895/1, SKANDA, 14th Crosss, Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore 560 086. 2. Mr. T.R. Reddy, Managing Partner, Presidency Group, Township Promoters, Regd. Office, 895/1, SKANDA, 14th Crosss, Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore 560 086. 3. Mr. Namdevganesh, Office Assistant, Aishwarya Projects Township Promoters, H.O. #717, 2nd Floor, Poornashashi Complex, Modi Hospital Road, 2nd Stage, West of Chord Road, Basaveshwara Nagar, Bangalore 560 086. 4. Mr. Ravikumar, Office Assistant, Aishwarya Projects Township Promoters, H.O. #717, 2nd Floor, Poornashashi Complex, Modi Hospital Road, 2nd Stage, West of Chord Road, Basaveshwara Nagar, Bangalore 560 086. Advocate (H.B. Udaykumar) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant being lured away with the advertisement and publicity issued by the OP, who claims to be the developers and promoters of residential layout consisting of plots of various dimensions in their project Global Citi Layout, thought of purchasing one plot of her choice. Complainant selected plot No. 549 measuring 30 X 50 feet. OP agreed to sell the said plot at the rate of Rs.750/- per sq. feet. Then complainant made the part payment of Rs.3,75,000/- agreeing to pay the remaining value at the time of registration. An agreement came to be executed on 22.05.2007. On 24.06.2008 when complainant visited the layout site, she was shocked to note that there were no developmental activities at all, the layout was not formed. Then immediately she contacted the OP, OP expressed its inability to complete the said project on some flimsy grounds, then refunded only Rs.1,00,000/-. Though complainant invested her hard earned money, she is unable to reap the fruits of her investment. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to compensate her and refund the amount, went in futile. Thus she felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP they are unable to get the conversion order from the concerned statutory authority for the formation of the said layout. With all fairness they refunded Rs.1,00,000/- out of Rs.3,75,000/- received from the complainant. OP is ready to refund the remaining amount, because of financial crisis, global economic crisis and the loss in the business, they are unable to refund the same in time. The claim of the complainant with regard to the interest as well as damages is highly imaginary. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard. 4. 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 OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant booked a plot No. 549 in the project floated by the OP in the name and style Global Citi Layout, K.R. Puram and paid Rs.3,75,000/- as 1/3 value of the said plot. OP entered into a sale agreement and acknowledged the receipt of the same. The grievance of the complainant is that on 24.06.2008 she visited the alleged layout. But to her utter shock and surprise, there were no developmental activities at all, project is not completed nor it is approved by the statutory authority. Hence she demanded the OP to refund her money and pay compensation. 7. As against this it is contended by the OP that because of want of conversion order from the statutory authority, they are unable to complete the said project. OP fairly admits that they have not completed the said project. When that is so, with all fairness they should have refunded the entire amount to the complainant. When they failed to obtain the conversion order is not known. OP collected the huge amount in the month of May 2007 and retained it without forming the layout, thereafter refunded only Rs.1,00,000/- on insistence made by the complainant. Why OP retained the remaining Rs.2,75,000/- is not known. OP admits that they are liable to pay remaining amount of Rs.2,75,000/-. 8. Having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the admitted facts OP having retained the said huge amount without forming the layout accrued the wrongful gain to self, thereby caused the wrongful loss to the complainant, that too for no fault of her. Though complainant invested her hard earned money, she is unable to reap the fruits of her investment because of the hostile attitude of the OP. We are satisfied that there is a proof of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. OP came forward with a lame excuse that due to global economic crisis and depreciation as well as loss in the business they are prevented from refunding the amount. This defence is tainted with crocodile tears with ulterior motive. 9. As already observed by us, because of the negligence on the part of the OP complainant is put to greater hardship, prejudice and inconvenience. Under such circumstances she is entitled for the refund of the remaining amount of Rs.2,75,000/- along with interest, token of compensation and litigation cost. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.2,75,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from June 2007 till realization and pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 04th day of April 2009.) MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.