COMPLAINT FILED: 25.06.2009<br /> DISPOSED ON: 22.02.2010 <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 22nd FEBRUARY 2010<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2269/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT M/s Rajath Fashions,<br /> Rep: by its Proprietrix,<br /> Smt. Ashalatha,<br /> At No.4, 100 feet Ring Road,<br /> BTM Layout, 2nd Stage,<br /> Bangalore – 560 076. <br /> <br /> Advocate: Sri. K.T. Dakappa<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY M/s Innovative Studios Pvt. Ltd.,<br /> Rep: by its Managing Director<br /> And Director Marketing,<br /> At Innovative Multiplex,<br /> # 135, Outer Ring Road,<br /> Varthur Hobli,<br /> Maruthi Junction,<br /> Bangalore – 560 037.<br /> <br /> Also at:<br /> Innovative Film City,<br /> No.24 and 26, <br /> Bidadi Industrial Estate,<br /> Opp: Toyota Kirloskar Showroom,<br /> Bidadi, Bangalore – 562 109.<br /> Karnataka.<br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of CP Act 1986, by the complainant, seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund advance amount of Rs.49,445/- along with interest at 21% p.a. from 16.06.2006 and to pay damages of Rs.1,00,000/- on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. <br /> <br /> 2. The brief averments made in this complaint are as fallows: <br /> <br /> Lured away with the publicity of the OP who claims to establish a film city near Toyota Kirloskar Tech Park, at Bidadi Industrial Area, Bangalore will open door for business to the individuals, firms and companies and let out various commercial spaces for business activities. Complainant who is a proprietrix of M/s Rajath Fashions negotiated with the OP to take a shop No.B-34 in the innovative film city on rental basis. OP offered to set out retail store space measuring 764 Sq. feet of super built up area in the upper ground level bearing shop No.B-34 on a monthly rent of Rs.49,445/-. Complainant paid Rs.49,445/- as refundable security deposit to the OP by way of cheque dated 16.06.2006 drawn on Syndicate bank. Acknowledgement issued by OP is produced. Complainant agreed to pay further amounts towards refundable advance and the OP shall complete the construction and put the complainant in possession within two years from 16.06.2006. Complainant liable to pay monthly rent at the rate of Rs.49,445/- from the date of taking possession of the shop bearing No.B-34. Though OP promised to complete the construction within two years there is no sign of starting any film city till today. Hence complainant demanded OP to refund the deposit amount. Though OP agreed to refund the amount with interest failed to refund the same. The complainant got issued legal notice. Inspite of service of notice there was no response. Complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the necessary reliefs accordingly. <br /> <br /> 3. On registration of the complaint notice is sent to OP. Inspite of service of notice OP remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. Hence OP is placed ex-parte. <br /> <br /> 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced VAT registration certificate of her firm, letter of offer made by the OP, Bank account extract, legal notice dated 20.08.2009 and RPAD cards. OP did not participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard. <br /> <br /> 5. It is the case of the complainant that she being a proprietrix of M/s Rajath Fashions, lured away with the offer made by the OP, who claims to establish a film city near Toyota Kirloskar Tech Park, Bidadi Industrial Area, Bangalore – 560 109 to set out various commercial spaces for business activities to be constructed by the OP. Complainant who is interested in owning a shop at a film city proposed to be constructed by the OP agreed to take shop No.B-34 for her business to the extent of 764 Sq. Ft. of super built up area in the upper ground level on a monthly rental of Rs.49,445/-. As per the agreed terms complainant paid Rs.49,445/- by way of cheque dated 16.06.2006 drawn on Syndicate Bank. The endorsement / acknowledgement made by OP on the copy of the application is produced. OP has en-cashed the cheque. The bank account statement is produced by the complainant. Further it was agreed that complainant has to pay further payment towards refundable deposit and OP shall complete construction and put the complainant in possession within two years from 16.06.2006. After taking possession complainant has to pay monthly rent of Rs.49,445/- to OP. There is no sign of construction till today. OP has falsely promised that work is going on and it will be completed within two years. When complainant visited the spot in the month of March – 2009 to her shock and surprise there was no progress of work and there was no sign of starting any film city or studio. So complainant demanded OP to refund the amount with interest. Though OP agreed to refund within a short period accepting its fault failed to refund the same. Hence complainant caused the legal notice on 20.08.2009 for refund of amount. Inspite of service of notice there was no response from OP. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. <br /> <br /> 6. The documents produced by the complainant supports the case of the complainant. Though complainant has paid her hard earned money to OP with on intention to have a shop to run her business she failed to get the same. OP having retained the amount for more than 3½ years caused wrongful loss to the complainant so as to gain wrongfully. If OP is aware of the fact that it not in a position to start the project could have fairly refunded the amount to the complainant. The non-refunding of the amount even after service of legal notice amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. We are satisfied that complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The absence of the OP even after due service of notice leads us to draw on inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant. Under the circumstances we are of the considered view that complainant is entitled for refund of amount along with interest at 12% p.a. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.49,445/- along with interest at 12% p.a. from July – 2006 to till the date of payment. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of communication of this order. <br /> <br /> (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 22nd day of February 2010.) <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Snm<br /> <br />