COMPLAINTS FILED ON: 22.06.2011
DISPOSED ON:26.03.2012.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
26th DAY OF MARCH-2012
PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT No.1138/2011
Complainant OPPOSITE PARTIES | Tirumala Kutumbarao P Major, Residing at: No.7, 1st Floor, 13th Cross, Chennakesava Nagar, Hosur Road, Electronic City Post, Bangalore-100. Adv:Sri.R.K.Amarnath, V/s. 1. M/s Granity Properties Pvt.Ltd, A Company registered under the Companies Act 1956, Having Office at No.43, 3rd Cross, 10th ‘A’ Main, Indiranagar, II Stage, Bangalore-560 038, Rep by its Managing Director. Ex-parte. 2. M/s Orange Properties, A Company registered under the Companies Act 1956, Having Office at Orange Towers, No.114/1, Vijaya Bank Colony, Banaswadi Outer Ring Road, Opposite To A.S.R.Kalyana Mantappa, Bangalore-560 043, Rep by its Managing Director. |
| Adv:Sri.S.Manjunath |
O R D E R
SRI. B.S. REDDY, PRESIDENT
The complainant filed this complaint U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 seeking direction against the Opposite Parties (herein after called as O.Ps) to refund an amount of Rs.4,40,000/- with interest at 19% p.a. and to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on the allegations of deficiency in service.
2. The case of the complainant to be stated in brief is that:
The complainant being lured away with wide publicity in the leading newspaper, brochure in respect of launching of the project by name ‘European Township’ Project at Hirandanahalli Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk booked for plot No.157 measuring 30 X 40 feet by paying Rs.4,40,000/- through cheques to OP1 and OP1 issued the receipts and executed agreement deed dt.18.07.2008. The Bangalore Development Authority published a Public Notice stating that Township proposed by OP1 is unauthorized layout. The complainant on enquiry came to know that there was no any layout formed, hence he demanded to refund the amount by issuing legal notice dt.05.08.4010, he also filed Police complaint before the Central Crime Branch, Bangalore Police and Ashok Nagar Police against the Ops. In spite of repeated demands requests and legal notice, Ops failed to refund the amount. Hence the complaint seeking the above said relief’s.
3. In spite of service of notice by paper publication, OP1 failed to appear without any justifiable cause, hence placed ex-parte.
4. On appearance OP2 filed version contending that OP2 had entered into an agreement with OP1 on 29.06.2008, under which, the OP2 was required to market the sites promoted and developed by OP1 to the intending purchasers. OP2 has invested huge money for promoting the sales of the sites by way of advertising in several newspapers, hired employees for marketing the sites. Several customers approached the Op2 and booked the sites by paying an advance to OP1. OP1 failed to complete the project and also failed to make a payment to OP2. OP2 filed a private complaint Under Section-200 of Cr.P.C. against OP1. Several complaints were filed by the Customers against Op1 before the Jurisdictional Police. OP1 filed Criminal Petition before the High Court for quashing the complaints and during the pendency of the proceedings, OP1 had undertook that he shall discharge the entire liability, but failed to make the payments till today. OP2 is just a Marketing Agent and has not played any role in cheating or inducing the complainant as averred in the complaint. The claim against OP2 is baseless. OP2 is not liable to pay any amount. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. The complainant in order to substantiate the complaint averments filed affidavit evidence. The Proprietor of Op2 filed affidavit evidence in support of the defence version.
6. The complainant filed Written Arguments.
7. Arguments on both sides heard.
8. Points for consideration are:
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 is
entitled for the relief now claimed?
Point No.3:- To what Order?
9. We record our findings on the above points are:
Point No.1:- Affirmative
Point No.2:- Affirmative in part.
Point No.3:- As per final Order.
R E A S O N S
10.On the basis of the complaint averments, the documents produced and affidavit evidence of the complainant, it becomes clear that on the basis of the advertisement and brochure issued regarding the proposed Township called ‘European Township’ Project at Hirandanahalli Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, the complainant booked plot No.157 and paid an amount of Rs.4,40,000/- through cheques to OP1. The copies of the receipts produced are dt.14.07.2008. The Bank Statement is also produced to show that the cheques issued in favour of OP1 are encashed. OP1 has also executed the agreement deed on 18.07.2008 acknowledging the receipt of Rs.4,40,000/-. OP1 has not developed the layout and no property has been acquired for developing the proposed Township. The BDA has issued public notice stating that the said Township proposed to be formed by OP1 is unauthorized and there is no any approval for the same. The complainant got issued legal notice dt.05.08.2010 demanding for refund of the amount, but Ops have not replied for the same nor complied the demand. The act of Ops neither forming any layout and allotting the site nor refunding the amount received, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. The amount has been received by OP1 and OP2 is only a Marketing Agent. The Op1 is liable to refund the amount with interest. In similar cases filed against the Ops in complaint No.1796/2010 and connected complaints. OP1 has been ordered to refund the amount and only a compensation of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded against OP2 as a Marketing Agent. Because of OP2 making wide publication and issuing brochure with regard to the project, the complainant was made to part with huge amount. Thus OP2 is liable to pay compensation to the extent of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant. OP1 is liable to refund the amount with interest at 12% p.a. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.
Op1 is directed to refund an amount of Rs.4,40,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 18.07.2008 till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.
OP2 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation 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 26th day of March-2012.)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Cs.
