COMPLAINT FILED:25.06.2011
DISPOSED ON:30.12.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
30th DAY OF DECEMBER 2011
PRESENT :-
SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER
SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.1166/2011
Complainant | Anudeep A, S/o Mr.Muralidhar A, & Sitha Lakshmi, R/o F-2, Plot No.87, Panchavati Apartment, 6th Main Road, 16th and 17th Cross, Malleshwaram, Banalore-560 003. S.P.A.Holder of Mr.Muralidhar A, & Sitha Lakshmi, R/o F-2, Plot No.87, Panchavati Apartment, 6th Main Road, 16th and 17th Cross, Malleshwaram, Bangalore-560 003. Advocate :Sri.M.H.Sawkar, V/s. |
OPPOSITE PARTIES | Mr.V.Bhaskar Reddy, Managing Partner M/s Aerozonaa, & Aishwarya Projects, No.717, Poornashashi Complex, Modi Hospital Road, Basaveshvaranagar, Bangalore-560 086. Another address No.895/1, “SKANDA” 14th Cross, Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore-560 086. Advocate :Sri.G.S.Suresh, |
O R D E R
Sri.B.S.REDDY,PRESIDENT
The complainant filed this complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 seeking direction against the OP to refund an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- with interest at 24% p.a. and to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of OP.
2. The notice was served on OP through paper publication. The counsel appeared for the OP. In spite of sufficient opportunity afforded, OP has not filed the version.
3.In order to substantiate complaint averments, the complainant filed affidavit evidence.
4. Arguments on both side’s heard.
5.We have gone through the complaint averments, the documents produced and affidavit evidence of the complainant. On the basis of these materials it becomes clear that earlier this complainant has filed complaint No.107/2010 seeking similar relief for refund of the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- and compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. The said complaint was dismissed holding that the complainant can chose registration of site at Royal County or at Royal Orchids by waiting till June-2010 to get the registration. The copy of the judgment is marked as Annexure-A. The affidavit filed by in that complaint is marked as Annexure-B and the copy of the orders in that complaint is marked as Annexure-C. The complainant took up that matter to the State Commission in appeal No.2402/2010 and the Hon’ble State Commission observed that Op has come forward to return the money or to allot alternate sites to the complainant, since the complainant did not choose either of the two and it is further observed that the complainant waiting till June-2010 to get the site registered in his favour. Annexure-D is the copy of the Order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission. Thus it becomes clear that the complainant was made to wait till June-2010 to get the sale deed registered in respect of the site proposed to be formed by the OP as a developer. The complainant had approached the OP for several times requesting to register the sites but OP has not responded till date. The complainant got issued legal notice demanding the OP to comply under taking given in the affidavit filed in the earlier proceedings. OP has avoided this said notice. Thus the complainant is now seeking for refund of the amount. As OP has not complied the undertaking given in the earlier complaint that he would register the site by the end of June-2010.
Annexure-B the copy of the affidavit evidence filed by the OP in complaint No.107/2010 clearly goes to show that OP has admitted the receipt of initial sale consideration of Rs.7,00,000/- in respect of allotment of site No.662 in the proposed layout called as “AEROZONAA” at Thattamchanahalli, Amanikere Village, Bullahalli Village and Venkatagirikote Village, Vijayapura Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, further he has stated in that affidavit that the property will be ready to register of July-2010. In spite of complainant waiting till date OP has not come forward to execute the sale deed by receiving the balance consideration and no material is supposed to prove the fact that the layout proposed is formed with due approval of the statutory authorities. The very fact of OP not filing the version leads to draw inference that OP is admitting the claim of the complainant. Under these circumstances, we are of view that the act of OP in not forming the layout and registering the site or refunding the amount, amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Though the earlier complaint was dismissed with an observation that the complainant as to wait till July-2010 to get the sale deed register and OP has not formed any layout and come forward to register the site, in view of the same the fresh cause of action arose to the complainant to claim refund of the amount. The complainant is entitled for the refund of the amount with interest at 18% p.a. as compensation from the respective date of payments till the date of realization along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.
OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 04.10.2006 till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2000/- to the complainant.
This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.
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 30th day of December 2011.)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Cs.
