O R D E R S

SRI. B.S. REDDY, PRESIDENT

The complainants filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P.) to allot and execute for registered sale deed in respect of plot No.250 in the layout called ‘LEARNIUM VALLEY’ at Kumbiganahalli, Ambiganahalli Villages, Jangamakote Hobli, Shidlaghatta Taluk, Chikkaballapur District and to pay damages of Rs.3,07,125/- with litigation cost and notice charges on the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

  2.  The case of the complainant to be stated in brief is that:

       OP is in the line of land development, proposed to develop land in Kumbiganahalli, Ambiganahalli Villages, Jangamakote Hobli, Shidlaghatta Taluk, Chikkaballapur District, in the name ‘LEARNIUM VALLEY’. In the said land the OP had agreed to sell plot No.250 measuring 1500 sq feet to the complainant for a total consideration of Rs.5,62,500/- and an agreement of sale was executed on 20.10.2008 by receiving sum of Rs.1,96,875/- as advance sale consideration. OP agreed to get the approval of DTCP and execute the registered sale deed and it was agreed that the rest of the sale consideration shall be paid to the OP within one month from the date of approval from DTCP. Though the agreement came into existence on 20.10.2008, the OP had not made any attempt to develop the land as assured and the complainant repeatedly approached the OP to know the development work. The complainant was constrained to issue legal notice on 27.12.2010 through his Advocate. OP has not replied for the same. The act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant is claiming recovery of Rs.1,69,875/- with interest at 2% p.m. which amounts to totally Rs.3,07,125/-. On failure of the OP to get the approval of the DTCP, they are bound to refund the initial deposit. The act of OP in not getting approval and failure to develop the land as agreed amounts to deficiency in service, the complainant is entitled for adequate compensation. The complainant is subjected to irreparable loss, injury ad hardship. Hence, the complaint.

3. OP though appeared through his counsel but failed to file version in spite of sufficient opportunity given.

4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed affidavit evidence. The complainant filed written arguments. Heard from complainant’s side.

5.  We have gone through the complaint averments, the documents produced and the affidavit evidence of the complainant. The very fact of OP having not filed the version goes a long way to hold that OP is admitting all the allegations made in the complaint. The complaint averments and affidavit evidence supported by the documentary evidence clearly goes to show that OP being a developer proposed to develop a layout called ‘LEARNIUM VALLEY’ Kumbiganahalli, Ambiganahalli Villages, Jangamakote Hobli, Shidlaghatta Taluk, Chikkaballapur District and agreed to sell plot No.250 measuring 500 sq.ft to the complainant for a total consideration of Rs.5,62,500/- and received initial advance sale consideration of Rs.1,96,875/- and executed agreement of sale dt.20.10.2008. The original agreement deed produced by the complainant reveals the terms and conditions. OP has agreed to receive the balance consideration of Rs.3,65,625/- within one month from the date of approval from DTCP. Further as per Clause-13 of the agreement, OP has agreed to refund the initial deposit with interest as per the existing Bank rate in case land has not been approved by DTCP. The receipt dt.22.01.2009 is issued by OP acknowledging the receipt of initial advance sale consideration of Rs.1,96,875/-. OP was unable to get the approval from DTCP and form the proposed layout as assured. When OP was unable to form the layout by obtaining the approval of DTCP it would have been fair enough on its part to refund the initial sale consideration received. The act of OP in not refunding amount received and failure to form the layout by obtaining the approval from DTCP is nothing but deficiency in service on its part. For the legal notice got issued by the complainant dt.27.12.2010 OP neither replied nor complied the demand to refund the amount with interest. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for the refund of the amount with interest at 18% p.a. and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:

O R D E R

The complainant filed by the complaint is allowed in part.

The OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,96,875/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 20.10.2008 till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-to the complainant within 4 weeks from the date of this Order.

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 29^th day of July 2011.)

 MEMBER                      MEMBER                       PRESIDENT

Cs:

COMPLAINT FILED ON: 07.03.2011

DISPOSED ON:29.07.2011

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

29^th DAY OF JULY-2011

  PRESENT:-  SRI. B.S. REDDY                             PRESIDENT

                     SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA                   MEMBER

                     SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA                           MEMBER

COMPLAINT No.462/2011

Complainant

OPPOSITE PARTY

Mr.Rudraiah S/o

Late Veerabhadraiah,

Aged about 57 years,

R/at No.10, A.R.C. Compound,

Old Madras Road,

Bangalore-560 038.

Advocate:Adinath Narde.,

V/s.

M/s Aipro Development Pvt. Ltd.,

Regd.Office at Shankar House,

No.1, 4^th Floor, R.M.V.Extension,

Mekhri Circle, Bangalore,

Represented by its Authorized Signatory Mr.Ajay Jyothula.

Advocate: Sri.P.M.Narayana Swamy