COMPLAINT FILED ON:29.09.2010
DISPOSED ON:03.05.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
3rd DAY OF MAY-2012
PRESENT:- SRI. B.S.REDDY PRESIDENT
SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINANT | R.Krishna Murthy S/o Late Ram Setty, Aged about 34 years, C/o Parthasarathy, No.M-66, 7th Cross, L.N.Puram, Market Road, Bangalore-560 021. Adv:Sri.K.P.Ramesh V/s. |
OPPOSITE PARTIES | 1. V. Bhaskar Reddy, No.717, IInd Floor, Iswaraya Project Poornasashi Complex Modi Hospital, 2nd Stage, Basaveswaranagar, Bangalore-80. Adv:Sri.Dhananjaya.C.P., 2. T.Ripunjaya Reddy S/o T.V.Raghava Reddy, Aged about 52 years, Resident of No.604, Vaishnavi Paradise, Sangam Circle, 8th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560 082. 3. C.Chenna Reddy S/o Late Venkata Reddy, Aged about 56 years, Resident of No.1265, 7th Cross,1st Phase, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore. 4. R.Guru Prasad S/o R.Krishna Reddy, Aged about 40 years, Residing at No.604, Vaishnavi Paradise, Sangam Circle, 8th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560 082. 5. V.K.Shankar Reddy S/o V.Konda Reddy, Aged about 45 years, Residing at No.54, 2nd Main, Bikasipura, Subramanyapura Post, ISRO Layout, Bangalore-560 078. 6. Mrs.Y.Hema W/o Y. Madhusudhana Reddy, Aged about 35 years, Residing at No.612/8, 8th Block, Koramangala, Bangalore. 7. M/s Presidency Elite, A Partnership Firm Rep. by its Partners 1 to 5 above Having Office at “Skanda”, No.895/1, 14th Crozs, Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore-560 086. Placed ex-parte. |
O R D E R
SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT
The complainant filed this complaint U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act of 1986 seeking direction against the Opposite Parties (herein after called as OPs) to refund an amount of Rs.3,24,000/- and to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on the allegation of deficiency in service.
2. The case of the complainant to be stated in brief is that:-
The complainant being attracted by the Scheme of the Ops under buy back Scheme in respect of the site No.36 proposed to be formed in “Presidency Elite” layout at Doddamarahalli, Ylluvahalli, Varamallenahalli, Nandi Hobli, Chikaballapura Taluk and District agreed to purchase the said site for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.6,48,000/-. Ops executed agreement deed on 15.12.2007 on the date of agreement the complainant paid an advance of Rs.2,16,000/- through cheques. The complainant was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract by paying the balance sale consideration and get the registered sale deed. Ops failed to perform their contract as they could not form proposed layout and allot the site. The complainant requested for refund of the advance sale consideration paid. OP1 issued cheque dt.25.08.2010 for Rs.2,16,000/- towards refund of the amount but the same was dishonoured. After the dishonour of cheque Ops agreed to pay the amount but failed to comply the demand. The legal notice was issued on 23.09.2010. Ops neither complied the demand nor replied the notice. Hence the complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and filed this complaint.
3. Ops 2 to 7 were impleaded during the pendency of these proceedings.
4. OP-1 filed version and OP2 to 7 remained ex-parte.
OP1 in the version filed contended that the complainant was informed that previous Government in order to approve the Master Plan had banned land conversion and layout development from July-2006 because of which the OP was not able to get any conversion or any plan from the concerned authority. The land lock was only for one year but it was extended from time to time and now the said land lock was unlocked by the Government by approving the Master Plan. Now OP1 applied for conversion and approval of the layout from concerned authorities. The process of completion of the project is very much on and it shall be completed within a period of six months. The delay in completion of the project is not intentional and it is only due to restriction laid by the Government. The other partners are necessary parties to the proceedings. The complainant is not a “Consumer” as defined under the Act and the dispute is not ‘Consumer’ dispute. The complaint is barred by limitation. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. The complainant in order to substantiate complaint averments; filed affidavit evidence and produced documents. OP1 filed affidavit evidence in support of defence version and produced the copy of the Partnership deed.
6. Arguments from complainant’s side heard, OP1 side taken as heard.
7. 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 are entitled for the relief’s now claimed?
Point No.3:-To What order?
8. 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
9. The copy of the Partnership deed produced by OP1 reveals that OP1 to 6 are the Partners of the Op1 a registered partnership firm. OP1 as a Managing Partner of OP7 has executed the agreement deed dt.15.12.2007 in favour of the complainant in respect of the site No.36 proposed to be formed in the project called Presidency Elite layout at Doddamarahanalli, Yelavalli, Varamallenahalli, Nandi Hobli, Chickballapura Taluk & Kolar District incorporating the terms and conditions and acknowledging the receipt of total amount of Rs.2,16,000/- from the complainant through cheques dt.12.11.2007 and 09.10.2007. Ops could not form any layout and allot the site as agreed. The complainant demanded for refund of the amount paid towards initial sale consideration. OP1 as a Managing Partner of OP7 issued the cheque towards the refund of the amount on 25.08.2010 but the said cheque was dishonoured as ‘Funds Insufficient’. OP1 has issued the receipt with regard to the receipt of the cheques towards initial sale consideration of Rs.2,16,000/-. The act of Ops neither forming the layout and allotting the site nor refunding the amount received towards initial sale consideration amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Ops not produced any material in support of the contention that now Ops applied for conversion and the project is in progress. The complainant cannot be made to wait indefinitely till Ops gets conversion and approval of layout.
10. There is no merit in the contention of the Ops that the complaint is barred by limitation. When once OPs accepted the initial sale consideration for allotment of the site, till the site is allotted or the amount is refunded the cause of action continuous to claim the relief’s. When Ops were not able to form any layout and allot the sites it would have been fair enough on their part to refund the amount received towards initial sale consideration. Taking into consideration of all the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount of Rs.2,16,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. by way of compensation 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 allowed in part.
Ops are directed to refund an amount of Rs.2,16,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 15.12.2007 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 this order.
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 3rd day of MAY-2012.)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Cs.
