Date of Filing :02.08.2019

 Date of Disposal :12.11.2024

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED:12.11.2024

PRESENT

Mr K B SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

(DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE (R)

Mrs DIVYASHREE M:LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.393/2019

1. Smt.Jyoshna Pratibha Renamala
    W/o Mr Suresh Kancherla,

    Aged about 33 years,

    R/at No.H-704,

    Pride Pristine Vasundara Layout,

    Ananthanagar, Phase-3,

    Electronic City,

    Bangalore-560100

2. Mr Suresh Kancherla
    S/o Mr Venkatesham Kancherla,

    Aged about 38 years

    R/at No.H-704,

    Pride Pristine Vasundara Layout,

    Ananthanagar, Phase-3,

    Electronic City,

    Bangalore-560100
   (By Mr Chetan Kumar K. Advocate)                           Complainants

 -Versus-

1. M/s Mahendra Homes Pvt. Ltd.,
    A Company registered under

    Companies Act, 1956

    Having its Regd. office at: No.51,

    17^th Cross, 12^th Main,

    6^th Sector, HSR Layout,

    Bangalore-560102

    Rep. by its Managing Director

    Mr B.T.Nagaraj Reddy
   

2. Mr B.T.Nagaraj Reddy
    Managing Director,

    M/s Mahendra Homes Pvt. Ltd.,

    Having its office at: No.51,

    17^th Cross, 12^th Main, 6^th Sector,

    H.S.R. Layout,

    Bangalore-560102                                                Opposite parties

    (Mrs. A P Hamsalatha, Advocate)

                                          -:ORDER:-

Mr. K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICAL MEMBER:

1.       This is a complaint filed under Section 17 of CP Act, 1986 by Complainants 1 and 2 to give direction against OPs 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.14,71,607/-  along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a from the date of receipt till the date of payment and sought for compensation for rendering deficiency of service & litigation costs.   Further they have sought to pass an award for Rs.23,71,607/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a.

2.       The brief facts of the case of the complainant 1 and 2 would be stated as follows:

          Complainants 1 and 2 are wife and husband, of whom complainant No.2 is an Engineer by profession and he is employed in   a reputed Multinational Company. Since they inclined to purchase Apartment bearing No.B-601 on the 6^th Floor of Tower-2 in the ‘Aarna’ project and as the OPs have represented that project is RERA registered and that schedule property does not have any defect of titular and have absolute right to deal with the apartments constructed on the schedule property have entered in to an agreement and the complainants have totally paid Rs.14,71,607/-. The OPs have furnished the Joint Development Agreement dated 01.06.2012 and they have promised to furnish copy of GPA executed in favour of OP1, but they have failed to furnish such copy despite repeated requests and reminder and in such circumstances, with no option they constrained to cause  a legal notice dated 15.06.2018 calling upon OPs to refund Rs.14,71,607/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice and the OPs have failed to reply to the said notice.  Hence, with no option have constrained to file a consumer complaint seeking refund of the amount paid by them.

3.       OPs have contested the complaint. They have filed version and denied the allegations of rendering deficiency of service. However, admitted receipt of Rs.14,71,607/-. They have submitted that though they have informed the complainants that they will provide the GPA copy executed in favour of OP1 but, complainants are impatience to receive.  The complainants have to pay GST of Rs.1,57,672/- and the OPs are entitled for forfeiture of the amount to an extent out of the amount Rs.14,71,607/- minus GST of Rs.1,57,672/-. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.       In view of rival contention of the parties to this complaint, commission held an enquiry by receiving affidavit evidence and documents from either side, after closure of evidence, having heard learned counsels on record of the respective parties. 

5.       Now the points that arise for consideration of the Commission are:

 Whether complainants 1 and 2 have proved to allege rendering deficiency in service on the part of OPs 1 and 2? And if so, are they entitled for relief sought for?

-:REASONS:-

6.        The complainant 1 and 2 being husband and wife, of whom husband is an Engineer by profession, to whom OPs have represented with fancy brochure that they are doing project ‘Aarna’ in Sy.No.110, 109/1 and 107/3A totally measuring 9 acres 2.12 guntas situated at Kammasandra, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District.  Accordingly, Complainants 1 and 2 have paid Rs.2 lakh by way of cheque, Rs.30,000/- cash on 26.04.2018 and have transferred Rs.12,41,607/- by way of RTGS on 30.04.2018 and to find support have produced receipts acknowledging the payments made by them. In fact, OPs in their version itself have admitted receipt of Rs.14,71,607/- and in Para 33 of their version  have stated about receipt of Rs.14,71,607/-. Further they have stated are ready to refund the amount with reasonable interest by deducting GST of Rs.1,57,672/- and Rs.2 lakhs towards forfeiture for not closing the transaction within prescribed time as agreed.  In other words, they are ready to refund Rs.11,13,935/- and not as prayed in the complaint.

7.       Learned counsel for Complainant nos. 1 and 2 would submit that complainants  have paid their hard  earned money amounting to Rs.14,71,607/- on 30.04.2018 and subsequently  they found defective title and to ascertain have sought for a copy of GPA executed in favour of OP1, but   failed to furnish copy of the GPA and in this regard  a legal notice was  caused prior to raising consumer complaint on 15.06.2018 and the Ops despite service have failed reply to the said notice and even now they failed to furnish such copy suffice to   hold that they did not have such copy or if such copy will be furnished would   go against them. In  other words the property which they agreed to sell is defective and in such circumstances, deducting Rs.1,57,672/- towards GST payable to Government and Rs.2 lakhs towards forfeiture for not closing the transaction within prescribed time do not arise at all.  In such view of the matter, Commission has to hold OPs 1 and 2 have rendered deficiency of service as alleged by the Complainants 1 and 2 and in such conclusion, they are held to be entitled for refund pf Rs.14,71,607/- along with reasonable rate of interest which in our view, would be 9% p.a from the date of receipts till realisation. Accordingly, Commission proceed to allow the complaint in part and directed OPs 1 and 2 to refund Rs. 14,71,607/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of receipts till realisation and directed OPs 1 and 2 to pay Rs.1,50,000/- for rendering deficiency in service and Rs.25,000/- towards cost of the litigation within 60 days failing which, even such amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of default till realisation.

8.       Send copy of this Order to the parties concerned for their information.

,        

      Lady Member                    Judicial Member

*s