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

DATED 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024

ORDER

SMT.M.SHOBHA, PRESIDENT

1. The complaint has been filed under Section 35 of C.P.Act (hereinafter referred as an Act) against the OP directing them to forthwith refund to the complainant a sum of Rs.4,93,000/- which he received a sale consideration from the complainant together with interest @ 18% p.a., and a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as damages in view of its deficiency in service and unfair trade practice resulted in mental agony, waste of his time, unwarranted expenditures and loss to the complainant, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

The OP is the promoters and developers of residential layouts projects in the name and style Sancity Kaveri, situated at Mallinathapura Village, Kempanahalli Village, Bolanahalli Village, of Billekere Hobli, Hunsur Taluk, Mysore District and Sancity Gold situated at Chikkakurugodu village and Kalludi Village, Kasaba Hobli, Gowribidanur Taluk, Chikballapur District. The complainant impressed by the advertisement and the brochures and assurances given by the OPs become the member of the said project and the complainant has booked two adjacent sites bearing Nos. 2060 and 2061 each measuring 30X40 feet, formed in Sancity Gold schedule property for a sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/-. The complainant has booked the site on 30.11.2013 by paying Rs.501/- and subsequently the OP has collected further Rs.3,99,501/- vide cheque dated 14.12.2013 and executed a MOU on 18.12.2013 relating to the above said two sites.  

3.       As per the terms of the said MOU the OP has agreed to complete the sale transaction by registering the sale deed in respect of the said site within 24 months.

4.       There is an obligation on the OP to complete the project within the stipulated time i.e., forming residential layout after obtaining the sanction of layout plan from the town planning authority providing all civic amenities besides other facilities as proclaimed in the advertisement and brochures. But the OP has utterly failed to complete the project work even after several years. To overcome the said delay of completion of the layout work and execution of sale deed the OP had adopted the mode of renewal of sale contract by executing MOUs dated 22.12.2015 and also executed sale agreement on 22.12.2016 and another sale agreement on 22.11.2018 and at the time of execution of each MOU and sale agreements the period was extended for 12 months.  Inspite of taking sufficient time the OP has only developed 30% of the development work and not completed 70% and there is no chance of the OP completing the project in few months.

5.       The OP has sent a letter on 14.02.2020, the OP has called upon the complainant to pay the additional amount of Rs.93,000/- and get the sale deeds register.  The complainant trusting the words of the OP has remitted the amount of Rs.93,000/- on 06.06.2020. Despite lapse of several months the OP did not execute the sale deeds and he has not shown any inclination to execute the sale deeds.  Whenever the complainant insisted the OP to honour the commitment they are telling that some litigations relating to the lands where the OP is forming the layout and on the guise of litigation the OP has postponed the registration of the sale deed. When the complainant has seriously demanded the OP either to execute the sale deed or to refund the amount the OP expressed its helplessness and also offered the complainant to choose one alternative site in its project Orchid Property in Neralagudda Village, Sira Taluk and handed over the copies of the layout.  The complainant visited the said area and noticed that the project work not yet started and there is no sign of the OP proceeding with the said project. Hence the complainant has decided to issue legal notice and issued the same on 26.04.2023. inspite of service of the notice, the OP has neither complied with the demands in the notice nor responded. Hence the OP has committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint is filed.

6.       In response to the notice, OP has not appeared before this Commission. Hence OP placed exparte.

7.       The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and relies on 12 documents. 

8.       Heard the arguments of the complainant. Perused the documents. 

9.       The following points arise for our consideration as are:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

10.   Our answers to the above points are as under:

Point No.1:  Affirmative

Point No.2: Affirmative in part

Point No.3: As per final orders

REASONS

11.     Point No.1 AND 2: These two points are inter related and hence they have taken for common discussion.  We have perused the allegations made in the complaint, affidavit evidence and documents. Inspite of issue of notice, OPs remained absent. Hence OPs neither challenged the allegations made in the complaint and also documents and they remained unchallenged.

12.     The complainant has filed affidavit evidence and reiterated all the allegations made in the complaint.

13.     In order to prove his contention the complainant has produced the Ex.C1 the brochure issued by the OPs calling the public to purchase the site. the complainant has become the member of the OP company and agreed to purchase two sites bearing NO.2060 and 2061 each measuring 30X40 feet in the layout called Sancity Gold situated at Chikkakurugodu village, Chikkaballapur District, and agreed to purchase the said two sites for a total consideration of Rs.4,00,000/-. The complainant has paid the advance amount of Rs.501/- and also paid Rs.3,99,501/-  towards advance sale consideration amount as per Ex.C3 and C4 and entered into MOU with the OP on 18.12.2013 as per Ex.C2.

14.     When the OP has failed to allot the site and register the same in favour of the complainant, they have offered the complainant to enter into another renewal MOU and also Sale Agreements as Ex.C5, C6 and C8.  The OP has extended the time for executing the sale deed and allotment of site for 12 months each on execution of Ex.C6 and C8.  When the OP has failed to complete the project, the OP has also offered an alternative site at Chikkaballapura District.  After visiting the spot the complainant came to know that the project was not yet started and there is no chance of formation of the layout by the OP.

15.     The complainant has also demanded the OP by sending letter and also legal notice on 26.04.2023 as per Ex.C12. Inspite of service of notice the OP neither responded nor honored the demands made by the complainant.

16.     It is clear from the above documents and evidence of the complainant that the complainant has booked the sites after paying the entire amount in the year 2013.  The complainant has also made the subsequent payment of Rs.93,000/- as per the demand made by the OP and also entered into renewal MOU and sale agreement with a fond hope that he may get a residential site and he may construct the residential house and stay with his family members peacefully. The OP has neither completed the project nor allotted and registered any site in favour of the complainant alleging that there are some litigations relating to the lands in which the layouts are going to be formed.

17.     It is the obligation on the part of the OP to get all the legal opinion in respect of the lands and also all the approvals from the concerned government authorities before forming the layout. The OP has neither obtained any approval from the competent authorities nor has cleared the litigations relating to the lands involved in the project has collected the money from the innocent purchasers like the complainant. The OP has played fraud on the complainant and other innocent purchasers by collecting large amount of money alleging that he will form the layout and allot and register sites in their favour even though he was not even purchased the litigation free lands for formation of the layout.  The conduct of the OP clearly discloses that he has committed deficiency of service and unfair practice and played fraud on the complainant by collecting entire sale consideration amount from the complainant. Hence complainant is entitled for the relief.  Therefore, we answer point No.1 in affirmative and point No.2 partly in affirmative.

18.     Point No.3:- In view of the discussion referred above the complaint is liable to be allowed in part.  This Commission may direct the OPs to refund of the amount paid to the OPs Rs.4,93,000/- with interest at 12% p.a., from the date of respective payment till realization.   OP is further liable to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation with litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. Hence we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. OP is directed to refund of the amount of Rs.4,93,000/- with interest at 12% p.a., from the date of respective payment till realization.
3. OP is further directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation along with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.
4. The OP shall comply this order within 90 days from this date, failing which the OP shall pay interest at 14% p.a. after expiry of 90 days on Rs.4,93,000/- till final payment.
5. Furnish the copy of this order and return the extra pleadings and documents to the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 12^TH day of FEBRUARY, 2024)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;

NIL