COMPLAINT FILED: 03-05-2010 <br /> DISPOSED ON: 19-07-2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 19TH JULY 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT :-SRI. B.S.REDDY PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1009/2010<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. Shivaprasad,<br /> S/o Late T H Pampapathy<br /> Aged about 46 years,<br /> R/at No 931, 13 Cross,<br /> 60 Feet Road, II phase,<br /> BEL Layout, Bharat Nagar<br /> Magadi Main raod, <br /> Bangalore-91.<br /> <br /> Advocate Sri. Channabasappa<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY M/s. Aipro County,<br /> No 3420, 2nd Floor,<br /> RPC Layout,<br /> Vijayanagar II Stage<br /> Bangalore-560 040.<br /> <br /> Represented by its <br /> Managing Partner Mr <br /> Jyothula Venkateshwara Rao<br /> <br /> Ex Parte<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) for refund of Rs.1,65,000/- paid towards purchasing of plot along with interest at 18% p.a. and Rs.1,00,000/- compensation on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. <br /> <br /> 2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows:<br /> <br /> The Complainant attracted with the advertisement offered by OP who claims to be the developer, to form a layout in the name and style “Aipro County” at Tadur Village Jangamakote Hobli, Shidlaghatta Taluk, Kolar District entered into an agreement of sale dt: 11.08.2007 with the OP to purchase a plot bearing No. 908 in AIPRO COUNTY layout measuring 1500 Sq.Fts. for a total consideration of Rs. 4,87,500/- which is inclusive of electricity, chainage system, Tar roads with street lights with a condition to obtain approval form DTCP. The complainant paid Rs. 1,65,000/- by way of cheque dt: 25.07.2007 drawn on Canara bank and balance consideration of Rs.3,22,500 was agreed to be paid within a period of one month from the date of approval from DTCP. The copy of the sale agreements and receipts issued by OP, correspondence copy of legal notice and postal acknowledgements are produced. Even after a lapse of one year there was no sign of development of project. After repeated requests and correspondences OP failed to refund the advance amount on 08.07.2009 OP in its reply promised to refund advance amount within six months. But failed to refund without any justifiable reason. Copy of reply letter is produced. Complainant caused legal notice on 16.03.2010. Inspite of service of notice there was no response. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint against OP for the necessary relief’s.<br /> <br /> 3. On registration of the complaint notice is issued to OP. Inspite of service of notice OP remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. Hence OP is placed ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 4. To substantiate the complaint averments the complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced copy of the sale agreements, receipts, correspondence and Legal notice and postal acknowledgements. Heard the arguments of the complainant.<br /> <br /> 5. It is the case of the complainant that he being attracted with the offer made by the OP. Who claims to be the developers to form a layout in the name and style ‘AIPRO COUNTY’ at Tadur Village, Jangamakote Hobli, Shidlagatta Taluk, Kolar Dist, entered into an agreement of sale with OP to purchase a plot bearing No. 908, at Aipro County layout measuring 1500 Sq.Fts. for a total sale consideration of Rs.4,87,500/- with a condition to obtain approval from DTCP. The complainant paid advance sale consideration amount of Rs.1,65,000/- by way of cheque dt: 25.07.2007 drawn on Canara bank and balance consideration was agreed to be paid within one month from the date of approval from DTCP. The receipt issued by OP is produced. Now the grievance of the complainant is that though OP collected advance amount of Rs.1,65,000/- from the complainant towards the cost of the plot failed to obtain approval from DTCP and develop the layout as per the terms of the agreement of sale even after a year OP did not come forwarded to execute the sale deed. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP.<br /> <br /> 6. We have perused the complaint averments, unchallenged affidavit evidence and documents produced by the complainant. The documents produced corroborates the case of the complainant. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant. As per clause 13 of sale agreement if land has not been approved by DTCP. OP has to refund the initial deposit amount with existing bank rate of interest. The letter dt: 22.09.2008 and 09.06.2009 written by complainant requesting to refund the amount has been served on the OP on the respective dates. On18.07.2009, OP replied that within six months amounts will be refunded with interest. The legal notice dt: 16.03.2010 issued on behalf of complainant has been served on OP 18.03.2010. There was no reply from OP. When OP was aware of the fact that it cannot go on with the developmental work, it could have fairly returned the amount to the complainant. OP by retaining the amount accrued wrongful gain to self and caused wrongful loss to the complainant that too for no fault of him. OP neither executed the sale deed nor refunded the amount. This act of the OP amounts deficiency in service on its part. The absence of OP inspite of service of notice leads us to draw an inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. We are satisfied that complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of OP. Under these circumstances we are of the considered view that complainant is entitled for refund of amount with interest and costs. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.1,65,000/- together with interest at 12% p.a from 25.07.2007 till realization along with litigation cost of Rs.2000/- to the complainant.<br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within four 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 19th day of July 2010.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> gm.<br />