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

DATED 30^TH DAY OF JANUARY 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 for the following reliefs against the OP:-

1. Direct the OP to repay the assured amount of Rs.14,90,000/- with interest at 24% p.a.,
2. Direct the OP to provide proper solution regarding the complainant’s above mentioned issues.
3. Direct the OPs to provide Rs.30,00,000/- as a compensation.
4. Direct the OPs to pay cost of litigation and such other orders.

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

The OP is a service providing company and they are builders of M/s Vsan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.  The complainant and the OP had entered into an agreement plot buy back option in Sancity Kaveri Project for site No.84H, 85H, 86H and 87H.  The OPs have assured the complainants that the project was fully secured and investors will get invested money back to the complainant as mentioned in the agreement. 

3. The complainant has invested an amount as per the chart furnished below:

After entering into the agreement the complainants have deposited the amount as per the agreements. After maturity of the agreements the OPs have not paid back the sum of the assured amount and the complainants have demanded for the same. But the OP have pleaded their own problems and postpone the payment of sum assured. Again the OPs conveyed for registration and the complainants further agreed for registration and the OPs have demanded additional charges of Rs.3,00,000/-.  The complainants with a fond hope and trust have paid Rs.3,00,000/- for the same and the OPs have given an invoice on 27.10.2021.

4.       The OPs have not turned up towards the registration or not paid back the deposited amount from the past one year.  The complainant visited the OP Company every now and then and too many times but the OPs have postponed the dates for one or the other reason.  After that the complainant has got issued a legal notice on 28.12.2022 and the same was served on the OP on 31.12.2022, but the OPs have not given any proper reply.  Hence the complainant not having any other remedy have filed this complaint.

5.       In response to the notice, OP appears and files version admitted all the transaction took place between them and the complainants and the amount received by them and under the scheme on double on return investment and the amount deposited by the complainant.

6.       It is the case of the OP that the MOU was entered between them on 09.10.2015 and on 07.11.2015 for the aforesaid plot. This OP was supposed to register the sale deed in favour of the complainant within two years from the date of execution of the MOU.  There was a delay in obtaining the conversion order from the government authorities. Further due to demonetization the OP was forced to halt his various project developments. After obtaining approvals from the concerned government authorities as per the new law the OP was compelled to register his project under RERA and then permitted to register the plots to his customers. In view of this the OP was unable to get register the aforesaid flat to the complainants as entered under MOU.

7.      The OP have further admitted the legal notice issued by the complainant.  The executives of the OP called the complainants and explained regarding the hike in the charges for the registration of the flat as per the government guidelines.  This OP was ready to repay the said amount to the complainants by deducting 10% of the TDS as per the government guidelines for which the complainants were not ready. This OP has also offered an alternative sites in another project which was ready for registration but the complainant not only disagreed to the same but even filed this complaint.  This OP is ready to provide alternative site to the complainant for the registration towards the executed MOU with the consent of the complainant provided he pays the deficit amount towards the existing price of the alternative sites. This OP is not in a position to refund the amount in view of the economic condition as is bad.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Therefore OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

8.      The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and relies on 06 documents.  Affidavit evidence of official of OP has been filed and OP relies on 02 documents.

9.      Heard the arguments of advocate for both parties. Perused the written arguments filed by both the parties.

10.     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?

11.   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

12.    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, version, affidavit evidence of both the parties, written arguments and documents filed by both the parties.

13.     We have gone through the affidavit evidence and Ex.P1 to P6 and Ex.R1 and R2 of both the parties.  

14.     It is undisputed fact that the complainants have booked the plot bearing site Nos.86H(Sancity Kaveri), at Mallinathapura Village, Hunsur Taluk, Mysore District for a sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- and other plots Nos. 84H, 85H, and 87H under the scheme DOUBLE ON RETURN INVESTMENT by paying a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each. The complainant was liable to receive a sum of Rs.3,80,000/- at the time of maturity on the amount invested in the aforesaid scheme.  

15.     There is no dispute about the MOU entered between them as per Ex.P1 to P4.  This OP was supposed to register the sale deed in favour of the complainants within two years from the date of execution of Ex.P1 to P4. When the OPs have neither offered the sites nor refunded the amount, the complainant has got issued legal notice as per Ex.P6 and it was duly served on the OP. Inspite of service of the notice, the OP neither complied nor refunded the amount

16.     The only grievance of the OP is that there was a delay in getting conversion order from the government authorities and they have got the conversion order in the year 2018. In addition to this the OP have also suffered serious financial crises due to demonetization. In addition to this after obtaining approvals from the concerned government authorities as per the new law the OP was compelled to register this project under RERA and then permitted to register the plot to his customers. In compliance of the same this OP was not able to get register the aforesaid plot to the complainants.  After received the notice from the complainants this OP have tried to convince the complainants regarding hike in the charges for registration of the flat. They have also agreed to return the investment and ready to pay the matured amount to the complainant by deducting 10% TDS as per the government guidelines for which the complainants were not ready and did not agreed to accept the amount after deduction of 10% TDS.  

17.     In addition to this the OP have also offered the complainants an alternative site in another project of which this OP was ready for registration, but the complainants were not only disagreed but they have filed this complaint before this commission. Even today they are ready to give alternative site if the complainants agreed to pay the existing price and deficit amount fixed by the OP as they are not in a position to refund the amount due to their poor economic condition.

18.     It is clear from the MOU Ex.P1 to P4 that the agreement was entered between the parties on 09.10.2015 and the OP have to complete the project and allot the sites in favour of the complainants within two years i.e., within 2017. There was no order passed by the government for demonetization and it was passed in November 2016 and the RERA Act came into force in the year 2016. The OPs have collected the substantial amount in the name of their attractive scheme i.e., double on return investment by the innocent persons like complainants even though they have not at all formed any plots and obtained proper conversion order from the government authorities.  The OP should have obtain the conversion and approval for formation of their layout before collecting the money from the general public. When the OP has collected substantial amount from the complainants for allotment of sites and also return of the deposit amount by giving double on investment scheme. Now the OP cannot say there was a delay in obtaining the conversion order and other approvals from the government and due to demonetization and also the RERA act and covid 19 problems, they are unable to form the layout. When the OP is unable to form the layout and get it registered to the complainants, nothing prevented them from refund of the matured amount as per their scheme to the complainants. The OP cannot keep the money of the complainants for their own purpose without allotting any sites. Under these circumstances, the complainants have clearly established the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.  

19.     The offer made by the OP is also not at all favorable to the complainants since they are demanding the existing rate of the site and also offering alternative site which are not at all booked by the complainants. Hence the complainants are entitle for refund of the matured amount as per the scheme offered by the OP.

20.     In view of the failure on the part of the OP either to refund or to allot the sites the complainants have suffered mental agony and disappointment and financial loss. If the complainants have invested the amount in any other project they would have constructed their dream house as per their wish and will and they would have stayed in the said houses with their family. Under these circumstances, the complainants are also entitled for compensation. The compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- and interest of 24% p.a., claimed by the complainants is on the higher side. Hence the complainants will be compensated if this commission award compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and interest at the rate of 14% p.a., on the matured amount. Hence we answer point No.1 in affirmative and point No.2 partly in affirmative.

21.     Point No.3:- In view the discussion referred above we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The OP is hereby directed to pay the assured amount for Rs.14,90,000/- along with interest at 14% p.a., from the date maturity till realization.
3. OP is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- to the complainants.
4. The OP shall comply this order within 60 days from this date, failing which the OP shall pay interest at 16% p.a. after expiry of 60 days on Rs.14,90,000/- 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 30^TH day of JANUARY 2024)

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

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