COMPLAINTS FILED ON: 06.02.2012
DISPOSED ON: 23.04.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
23rd DAY OF APRIL-2012
PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT Nos. 264, 265 & 266/2012
Complaintno. 264/2012 Complainant | Sri. Ravi Chandran, S/o. R. Munirathinam, Residing at No. 691, 8th Main, HSR Layout, 7th Sector, Bangalore – 560 102. |
Complaintno. 265/2012 Complainant | Sri. Padmanabhan. M, S/o. R. Munirathinam, Residing at No. 86, Ist ‘B’ Cross, 5th Block, Banashankari IIIrd Stage, IIIrd Phase, Bangalore – 560 085. |
Complaintno. 266/2012 Complainant | Sri. Mohan Velu, S/o. R. Munirathinam, Residing at No.295, “Ferns City” Doddanakundi, Outer Ring Road, Marathahalli, Bangalore – 560 037. By Adv. Sri. Shivananda |
| V/s |
OPPOSITE PARTY/S | 1. M/s. Aishwarya Buildtech Private Limited, Having registered office at No. 531, Faiz Avenue, I Floor, 11th Main, 32nd Cross, 4th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 011 Rep. by its Director Sri. V. Bhasakar Reddy. 2. Sri. V. Bhaskar Reddy, Director (Administration) M/s. Aishwarya Buildtech Private Limited, No.01, 4th Main, Kuvempu Nagar, Dodda Kallasandra, Bangalore – 560 062. |
COMMON ORDER
SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT
These are the complaints filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the respective complainants against the same Opposite Parties (herein after called as O.Ps) seeking direction to complete the layout formation work and to hand over a plot or in the alternative to refund the amount paid as initial sale consideration towards allotment of plot with compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on the allegations of deficiency in service.
2. Since OPs are common in all these complaints, the questions involved and the reliefs claimed being similar, in order to avoid the repetition of facts and multiplicity of reasoning’s these complaints are stand disposed of by this common order.
3. Inspite of service notice by intimation delivery OPs failed to appear without any justifiable cause, hence placed ex-parte.
4. In order to substantiate complaint averments, each of the complainants filed affidavit evidence and produced documents.
5. Heard arguments from complainant’s side.
6. We have gone through the complaint averments, the documents produced and affidavit evidence of each of these complainants. On the basis of these materials, it becomes clear that OP.1 is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act engaged in the activities of developing the properties and sale of such developed properties to its customers and OP.2 is the Director (Administration) of OP.1. These complainants being lured away with brochure issued by OPs and advertisement made in respect of forming the layout called “Aishwarya Dharshan County” near Hosakere Halli, Uttarahalli Hobli, BSK III Stage, Bangalore South, booked sites by paying initial sale consideration to OPs on 02.04.2004 to an extent of Rs.2,50,000/- by each complainant in complaint No.264/12 and 265/12 and Rs.4,00,000/- by the complainant in complaint No.266/12 for the sites measuring 1500 sq. feet out of total sale consideration of Rs.9,75,000/- and Rs.15,60,000/-. The OPs executed agreement deeds on 03.04.2004 in favour of these complainants incorporating the terms and conditions with regard to the allotment and execution of the sale deed in respect of the sites and OPs have also issued the receipts acknowledging the receipt of the initial sale consideration from each of these complainants. OPs were unable to form any layout and allot the sites, complainants demanded to refund the amount received as initial sale consideration and got issued the legal notice dated 16.01.2012 for which OP.2 has not replied and the notice sent to OP.1 was returned as “no such addressee”. The act of OPs neither forming the layout and allotting the sites nor refunding the amount received as initial sale consideration from these complainants, amounts to deficiency in service on their part. When OPs were not able to form the layout and allot the sites, it would have been fair enough on their part to refund the amount received with interest to the complainants. The very fact of OPs remaining ex-parte, leads to draw an inference that OPs are admitting the claim of the complainants. There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged affidavit evidence of the complainants and the documents produced. The complainants are entitled for refund of initial sale consideration received with interest at 18% p.a. by way of compensation along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- each. The complainants have not produced any material to show that OPs have acquired any land for the proposed layout and there is any conversion order for forming the layout. In view of the same OPs cannot be directed to complete the layout and allot the sites. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaints filed by the complainants are allowed in part.
OPs are directed to refund an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- in complaint Nos. 264/12 & 265/12 with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 03.04.2004 till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to each of the complainants.
OPs are directed to refund an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 03.04.2004 till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- in complaint No. 266/12.
This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of communication of the order.
This original order shall be kept in the file of the complaint No. 264/12 and a copy of it shall be placed in other respective files.
Send the copy of this order to the complainant 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 23rd day of APRIL– 2012.)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Png.
