Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/11/2307

Mr.M.S.Venkatesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Royal country (A Partnership Firm) - Opp.Party(s)

V.R.K Advocates

30 Apr 2012

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM (Principal)
8TH FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BWSSB BUILDING, BANGALORE-5600 09.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/11/2307
 
1. Mr.M.S.Venkatesh
SS/o M.Suryanaryana Shetty,Major By Age,R/o #195,5th main,4th cross,Nrupatunga nagar,7th phase,JP Nagar,B'lore-78
 
BEFORE: 
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 19.12..2011

                        DISPOSED ON: 30.04.2012

 

 

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

 

30th DAY OF APRIL 2012

 

  PRESENT :-  SRI. B.S. REDDY                   PRESIDENT

                     SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA         MEMBER

 

       COMPLAINT NO. 2307/2011

                                 

Complainant

Mr. M.S. Venkatesh,

S/o. M. Suryanarayana Setty,

Major by Age,

R/o # 195, 5th Main,

4th Cross, Nrupatunga Nagar,

7th Phase, JP Nagar,

Bangalore – 78.

 

 

By Adv. Sri. Siddanooru Vishwanatha

 

V/s.

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES

M/s. Royal County

(A Partnership Firm)

# 895/1, SKANDA, 14th Cross,

Mahalakshmi Layout,

Bangalore – 560 086.

Rep. by the Managing Partner,

Mr. Bhaskar Reddy,

Major by age.

 

Present Address:

M/s. Royal County,

Poornashashi Complex,

2nd Floor, Modi Hospital Road,

2nd Stage, West of Chord Road,

Basaveshwara Nagar,

Bangalore – 86.

Rep. by the Managing Partner,

Mr. Bhaskar Reddy,

Major by Age.

 

Placed Ex-parte.

 

 

O R D E R

 

 

Sri. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT

 

The complainant filed this complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 seeking direction against OP to refund an amount of Rs.8,28,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. and to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on the allegation of deficiency in service.

 

2. In spite of service of notice by intimation delivered, OP failed to appear without any justifiable cause, hence placed ex-parte. 

 

3. In order to substantiate complaint averments, the complainant filed affidavit evidence and produced documents.

 

4. Heard arguments from complainant’s side.

 

5.     We have gone through the complaint averments, the documents produced and affidavit evidence of the complainant.  On the basis of these materials, it becomes clear that in the year 2006 OP offered various sites which were supposed to be formed at Huyilalu Village, Yelawala Hobli Mysore Taluk, Mysore District.   The complainant approached OP for the allotment of site measuring 1200 X 2 and 1500 X 3 i.e. 6,900 sq. feet in the said Royal County Layout and paid an advance amount of Rs.8,28,000/-.   An amount of Rs.4,00,000/- has been paid through cheque dated 21.01.2007 and another cheque for Rs.4,28,000/- on 27.01.2007.   OP has issued the receipts acknowledging the receipt of the said amounts.   On 09.03.2007 OP executed agreement deed in respect of the site and in the agreement deed OP has acknowledged the receipt of the amount of Rs.8,28,000/-.   Even after completion of almost two years, OP failed to form any layout and allot a site.   On 18.06.2009 OP has written a letter to the complainant, wherein OP has agreed to repay the advance amount in two installments, but OP failed to keep up that promise.    Annexure-D is the said letter.   On 04.01.2010 OP has issued 04 cheques for a total sum of Rs.8,28,000/- along with covering letter towards refund of the amount, but the said cheques on presentation were returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient”.   The copies of the cheques and the covering letter are marked as Annexure E to N.   The complainant got issued legal notice dated 02.11.2011, the same was duly served on the OP.   OP neither complied the demand nor replied the notice.    Thus the act of OP neither forming layout and allotting the site nor refunding amount received as initial sale consideration amounts to deficiency in service on its part.     The very fact of OP remaining ex-parte leads us to draw inference that OP is admitting the claim of the complainant.   There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged affidavit evidence of the complainant and the documents produced.   Under these circumstances we are of the view that the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount with interest at 18% p.a. by way of compensation along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-.   Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

 

 

O R D E R

       

        The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.

 

OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.8,28,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from  09.03.2007 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.

 

 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 30th day of APRIL 2012.)

 

                                                                                                      

 

MEMBER                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

Png.

 

 

 

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.