Date of Filing: 24/09/2011

        Date of Order:23/11/2011

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE -  20

Dated:  23^rd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011

PRESENT

SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT

SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.1775 OF 2011

Mr. Mohammed Rashid,

S/o. Mohammed Yunus,

Aged About 37 years,

R/at: No.35, Royal Manor,

Flat # S-01, Ranoji Rao Road,

Basavanagudi, Bangalore-560 004.

(Rep. by Prime Law Associates, Advocate)                             ….  Complainant.

V/s

M/s. Apoorva Developers,

Apoorva Mansion,

Doddabommasandra,

Vidyaranyanapura,

Bangalore-560 097.

Rep. by its Proprietor

Mr. A.V. Suresh Babu.

(Rep. by Sri.Anant Kulkarni, Advocate)                      …. Opposite Party.

BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

-: ORDER:-

The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the Opposite Party to pay Rs.3,00,000/-, are necessary:-

On 13.08.2008 an agreement of sale was entered in to between the parties with respect to the site No.243 for a total consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- and complainant paid an advance of Rs.2,50,000/- to the opposite party.  The opposite party did not develop the project till October-2009 and as per the instructions of the opposite party, he cancelled the booking and requested refund of the amount paid on 10.12.2009.  As the opposite party did not comply, a notice was issued on 21.07.2011, even then no relief was granted.  Hence the complaint.

2.       In brief the version of the opposite party are:-

Agreement, consideration, receipt of advance are all admitted.  According to the agreement the matter has to be referred to the arbitration.  Beyond the control of the opposite party, he could not develop the project.  The opposite party has offered a site which is just 29 kilometers from Bangalore city situated at Cholappanahalli, Hoskote at Rs.413/- per square feet though market value is Rs.900/- per square feet.  The opposite party has also informed it to the complainant by reply notice dated: 21.07.2009. The complainant has violated the terms of the contract.  No question of paying any interest or refund of the money.

3.       The opposite party has stated that its version and documents be read as its evidence.  The complainant did not turn up.  Hence arguments of opposite party were heard.

4.       The points that arise for our consideration are:-

:- POINTS:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service?
2. What Order?

5.       Our findings are:-

Point (A) & (B):        As per the final Order

                             for the following:- 

-:REASONS:-

Point A & B:-

6.       Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the documents on record it is an admitted fact that on 13.08.2008 an agreement of sale was entered in to between the parties with respect to “Apoorva Horizon” wherein the opposite party had agreed to develop sites and allot and register a site No.243 of 4000 square foot in the residential area for certain sum of money and received Rs.2,50,000/- as advance.  It is also admitted that the from that day till date the opposite party has not developed the layout nor formed the layout nor made the site nor made anything in that land nor that land is there.  It is also an admitted fact that as per the request of the opposite party the complainant sent a mail on 10.12.2009 seeking refund of the amount paid even that has not been paid to the complainant.  The complainant made several emails he also issued notice even then the opposite party has not paid the money.  It is nothing but deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

7.       The opposite party contends that it is prepared to allot a site in some other area which is 29 kilometers away from Bangalore in Hoskote.  The complainant is not willing to take that.  The site for which the agreement was entered in to is in Puttaparthi, Narepalli and Hosahudya villages of kasaba Hobli, Bagepalli Taluk, Chikkaballapur District i.e., in the north of Bangalore, but the opposite party wants to allot site to the east of Bangalore.  The complainant had agreed to take the site at Puttaparthi so that it is nearby to Sri Sathya Sai Temple and not in Hosakote.  Taking money to allot a site in a particular place not allotting is nothing but an unfair trade practice.  Offering sites in some other area and not in the area which was agreed is also an unfair trade practice.  Hence under these circumstances the contentions of the opposite party is an untenable one hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1.        The complaint is Allowed-in-part.

2.        The opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from 13.08.2008 until payment within 30 days from the date of this order.

3.        The opposite party is also directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,000/- as costs of this litigation.

4.        The opposite party is directed to send the amounts as ordered at Serial Nos. 2 & 3 above to the complainant through DD by registered post acknowledgment due and submit the compliance report to this Forum with necessary documents within 45 days from the date of this order.

5.       Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.

6.       Send a copy of this order to both the parties free of costs, immediately.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 23^rd Day of November 2011)

MEMBER                                               MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT