Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/11/2263

Smt.Alaparthi radhika, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s My County - Opp.Party(s)

10 Apr 2012

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM (Principal)
8TH FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BWSSB BUILDING, BANGALORE-5600 09.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/11/2263
 
1. Smt.Alaparthi radhika,
W/o Late A.Radhakrishna Prasad,Residing at Angalakuduru,Tenali Manddal,Guntur district,A.P.Now at B'lore
 
BEFORE: 
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

COMPLAINTS FILED ON:30.11.2011

DISPOSED ON:10.04.2012

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

10th DAY OF APRIL-2012

 

  PRESENT:-  SRI. B.S. REDDY                   PRESIDENT       

                      SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA                     MEMBER              

 

 

COMPLAINT Nos.2176. 2177 & 2263/2011

       

Complaintno.2176/2011

Complainant

 

 

Atluri Venkateshwara Rao,

C/o Ajay Kumar,

Aged about 38 years,

Residing at No.48,

Subbanna Layout,

Beside KEB receiving Station,

Hoodi, Mahadevapura Post,

Bangalore-560 048.

 

Adv:Sri.M.Lakshmana

 

Complaintno.2177/2011

Complainant

 

 

Smt.Atluri Sasi

W/o K.Ajay Kumar,

Aged about 35 years,

Residing at No.48,

Subbanna Layout,

Beside KEB receiving Station,

Hoodi, Mahadevapura Post,

Bangalore-560 048.

 

Adv:Sri.M.Lakshmana

 

Complaintno.2263/2011

Complainant

 

Smt.Alaparthi Radhika

W/o late A.Radhakrishna Prasad,

Aged about 58 years,

Residing at Angalakuduru,

Tenali Manddal,

Guntur District,

Andhra Pradesh,

Now at Bangalore.

 

Adv:Sri.M.Lakshmana

 

V/s

 

OPPOSITE PARTY/S

 

M/s My County

Having its registered Office

at Skanda, No.895/1,

4th Cross, Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore-560 086, Represented by its

Partners

 

1. V.Bhaskar Reddy

2. T.R.Reddy.

 

Adv:Sri.G.S.Suresha

 

COMMON ORDER

SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT

 

These complaints are filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the respective complainants seeking direction against the Op to refund the amount paid towards sital deposit and to pay compensation along with litigation expenses on the allegations of deficiency in service.

 

2. Though Ops were served notice through paper publication and the counsel had undertaken to appear, but failed to file the vakalath and version.

 

 

3.The complainants in order to substantiate complaint averments, each of the complainants filed affidavit evidence and produced documents.  

 

4. Arguments from complainant’s side heard,

 

5.We have gone through the complaint averments, the documents produced and affidavit evidence of the complainants. On the basis of these materials, it becomes clear that OP represented by its partners entered into an agreement of Sale dt.03.11.2006 and 05.12.2006 in respect of plots in the layout called as “MY COUNTY” at Chikkahullur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District and received an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- from each of complainants in complaint Nos.2176/2011 and 2263/2011 and amount of Rs.3,60,000/- from complainant in complaint No.2177/2011 towards advance sale consideration and issued the receipts. Ops failed to fulfill their obligation by forming the layout and allotting the sites. The Legal Notice dt.03.11.2011 was issued to the Ops demanding to refund the amount paid as initial sale consideration with interest at 2% p.m. The Ops failed to refund the amount. 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 as initial sale consideration received from the complainants. The act of Ops neither forming the layout and allotting the site nor refunding the amount received as initial sale consideration, amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

 

6. There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged affidavit evidence of the complainants, the documents produced. The very fact of Ops not filing version leads to draw inference that Ops are admitting the claim of the complainants. The complainants are entitled for refund of the amount paid towards initial sale consideration with interest at 18% p.a. from the respective date of payments till the date of realization by way of compensation along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- in each case. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

 

O R D E R

       

        The complaints filed by the complainants are allowed in part.

In complaint No.2176/2011 Op is directed to refund an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 03.11.2006 till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.

In complaint No.2177/2011 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.3,60,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 05.12.2006 till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.

In complaint No.2263/2011 Op is directed to refund an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 05.12.2006 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 its communication.

 

This original order shall be kept in the file of the complaint No.2176/2011 and a copy of it shall be placed in other connected file.

 

 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 10th day of April-2012.)

 

                                                                                                     

 

MEMBER                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

Cs.

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.