COMPLAINT FILED: 25.06.2009<br /> DISPOSED ON: 10-08-2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 10TH AUGUST 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI.A.M.BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1481/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri. Pradeep Chavda,S/o.Kanjibhai Chavda,Aged about 33 Years,R/at No.V-001, Poorva Paramount, 25th Cross, Sector-2, HSR Layout,Bangalore – 560 102.Advocate – Sri.B.C.ChetanV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY M/s. Orange Constructions & Infrastructure,No.405-406, 4th Floor,Prestige Meridan – II, M.G.Road,Bangalore – 560 001.Rep by its Mandate-Holder-Proprietor: Mr.Vijay.R.T.Also at: “Orange Tower” No.114/1,Outer Ring Road,Vijaya Bank Colony, Dodda Banasawadi,Bangalore-560 043.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund Rs.2,00,000/- and pay a compensation and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> 2. Complainant being lured away with the advertisement and propaganda issued by the OP who claims to be the promoter, developer and builder of residential apartment in the name and style “Orange Township” booked a flat of his choice. In that regard he made a part payment of Rs.2,00,000/-. OP acknowledged the same. But thereafter failed to complete the said project in time. The repeated request and demands made by the complainant that he is not interested in the flat and to refund the payment went in futile. On insistence OP issued a cheque for Rs.1,40,000/- deducting Rs.60,000/- without any justification. Even that cheque was bounced. Then the complainant caused the legal notice to OP to refund the entire amount. Again it went in vain. Thus complainant felt unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. <br /> <br /> 3. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were sent to the admitted address of the OP. OP did not claim the said notice, the service is held sufficient. The absence of OP does not appears to be as bonafide and reasonable. Hence OP is placed Ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP didn’t participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 5. It is the case of the complainant that he being lured away by the advertisement and propaganda issued by the OP booked flat in the project floated by the OP in the name and style “Orange Township” bearing flat No.7 block No.05 and made part payment of Rs.2,00,000/-. OP acknowledged the same. Though OP promised to complete the said project within the reasonable time, but it failed to complete the formalities. Hence, complainant thought of cancellation of the said flat and sought for refund of the amount paid. OP obliged and issued cheque, but refunded only Rs.1,40,000/- on 15-04-2009 deducting Rs.60,000/- without any justification and proper cause or reason. Even that cheque was bounced with endorsement funds insufficient. <br /> <br /> 6. Complainant has produced the corresponding documents to satisfy all the allegations of deficiency in service. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. The non-appearance of the OP leads us to draw an inference it admits all the allegations made by the complainant. The very fact that the refund cheque for Rs.1,40,000/- issued by OP bounced speaks to the malafide intention of the OP and what is the base for the deduction of Rs.60,000/- is not known. So all these acts and deeds of OP, in our view amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 7. The complainant though invested his hard earned money he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of the hostile attitude of the OP. OP having retained the huge amount accrued wrongful gain to self thereby caused wrongful loss to the complainant. Under such circumstances complainant is entitled for certain relief. Bearing in mind the facts and circumstances of the case in our view justice will be met by directing the OP to refund Rs.2,00,000/- with interest and pay litigation cost. With these reasons we proceed to pass the following : -<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is allowed in part.<br /> <br /> OP is directed to refund Rs.2,00,000/- with 9% interest from 26-01-2009 till realization and pay a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-.<br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (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 August 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> NRS<br />