BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 20^th DAY OF JULY 2021

PRESENT

SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.164/2014

M.C.Kumaraswamy S/o Chandraiah,

A/a 58 years, R/at No.102,

Prestige Richmond, No.3,

Lalbagh Road, Bangalore-560 027.

……….Complainant

(By Sri. Shree RamSingh, Adv.,)

V/s

M/s Bearys Properties and Developments

#Bearys Horizon, 21 Wood Street,

Bangalore-560 025, Repd. By its Directors

1.       Mr.Syed Mohammed Beary

2.       Mr. Abubakar Siddique Beary

(By Sri. P.B.Appaiah, Adv.,)

……….Opposite Parties

:ORDERS:

BY SRI RAVISHANKAR  – JUDICIAL MEMBER

         The complainant filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties alleging deficiency in service in not registering the sale deed in favour of the complainant in spite of repeated requests and demands.  Hence, prays for payment of Rs.69,72,656/- which was an interest paid towards loan along with compensation of  Rs.10,00,000/- together with interest @ 18% per annum along with other reliefs. 

2.      The facts of the complaint are as under:-

         The complainant and Opposite Party entered into a sale agreement of residential apartment dated:24/10/2007 and Opposite Party agreed to register the sale deed in his favour a unit bearing No.A-022 having 3 bedrooms and having a super built up area of approximately 2235 Sq.Ft. inclusive of proportionate share in the common areas in the 2^nd floor of ALPHA Tower of the multi-storied residential apartment complex by name “BEARYS LAKESIDE HABITAT” being constructed on the schedule “A” property together with 2 car parking spaces for a total consideration amount of Rs.1,19,75,650/-. 

2(a)  The complainant further submits that at the time of executing the sale agreement, the complainant had paid Rs.15,00,000/- and thereafter he availed a loan from the State Bank of Mysore and in-turn the bank has sanctioned a loan to the tune of Rs.87,50,000/- which was paid to the Opposite Parties as per the agreement.  The Opposite Party has to register the property in favour of the complainant and gave possession of the same, but instead of doing so, the Opposite Parties after receipt of the consideration amount had not registered the said property in his name.

2(b) The complainant further submitted that after availing loan, he was paying the interest regularly to the bank and he had paid an interest to the tune of Rs.11,15,625/- and totally the complainant had paid Rs.69,72,656/- even though after taking possession the Opposite Party not registered the sale deed.  Hence, complainant demanding for registration of the sale deed, but so far the Opposite Party had not registered the said property in his name.  Therefore, alleged deficiency in service and prays to direct the Opposite Parties as stated above.

3.      After service of notice, the Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel and filed the version, wherein they contended that the complainant had entered into an agreement with them for purchase of the property bearing No.A-022 having 3 bedrooms and having a super built up area of approximately 2235 Sq.Ft. inclusive of proportionate share in the common areas in the 2^nd floor of ALPHA Tower of the multi-storied residential apartment complex by name “BEARYS LAKESIDE HABITAT” being constructed on the schedule “A” property together with 2 car parking spaces for a total consideration amount of Rs.1,19,75,650/-.  Apartment that the complainant also entered into an agreement of sale towards undivided share of land (sale agreement dated:24/10/2007 with M/s Hara Properties and holdings, represented by the Directors of the Opposite Parties for purchase of proportionate undivided share of the land owned by Hara Properties and Holdings on which the building by name “Bearys Lakeside Habitat” was built (“the said land”) and the agreed consideration for the said land was Rs.2,51,100/- under the sale agreement.

3(a). The Opposite Parties further contended that additionally the complainant agreed to pay the following amounts:-

And that the total cost of the said apartment and the said land is Rs.1,37,53,000/- towards full and final payment and the same was reflected in the payment schedule. 

3(b)  The Opposite Parties further contended that at the request of the complainant they have furnished the details of cost of the interiors, furniture and fixtures was Rs.14,15,915/- which the complainant also agreed to pay to the Opposite Party.  In all the complainant is liable to pay Rs.1,51,68,915/-, out of which the complainant had admittedly paid a sum of  Rs.1,12,50,000/- only as follows:-  

3(c) Thus, after payment of the said amount, the complainant still balance of Rs.39,18,915/- towards registration of the sale deed.  But complainant had suppressed the said material facts and filed false complaint alleging deficiency in service.  Anyhow at the request of the complainant, they have handed over the possession to the complainant on 8^th June 2009 itself under cover letter requesting the complainant to pay the balance amount for the registration, in spite of that, the complainant had not paid the balance amount due for registration.   

3(d)   The Opposite Parties further contended that due to non-payment of the loan, the SBI had initiated proceeding against the complainant and they made this Opposite Parties as party to the said proceeding.  The complainant is liable to pay the EMIs after taking possession of the apartment.  By suppressing all these material facts, the complainant only alleges deficiency in service in not registering the sale deed.  Even now, they are ready to register the schedule property to the complainant if he pays balance due amount towards registration.  Hence, there is no any deficiency of service on their side and prays to dismiss the complaint.    

4.       Complainant and Opposite Parties filed their affidavit evidence.  The complainant marked the documents at Ex.C1 to C9 and C11 to C15.  The Opposite Party also got marked the documents at Ex.C1 to C16.

5.      We have heard the arguments. 

6.       On perusal, the following points will arise for our consideration;

(1)     Whether the complaint deserves to be allowed?

(2)     What Order?

7.       The findings to the above points are;

                   (1)     Partly affirmative.

                   (2)     As per final Order

:REASONS:

Point Nos. (1) & (2):-

8.       There is no dispute that the complainant had entered into an agreement of sale towards apartment bearing No.A-022 having 3 bedrooms and having a super built up area of approximately 2235 Sq.Ft. inclusive of proportionate share in the common areas in the 2^nd floor of ALPHA Tower of the multi-storied residential apartment complex by name “BEARYS LAKESIDE HABITAT” being constructed on the schedule “A” property together with 2 car parking spaces for a total consideration amount of Rs.1,19,75,650/-.   After the said agreement, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.24,96,000-00 to the Opposite Party and complainant obtained loan of Rs.87,54,000-00 and the said amount was paid by the Bank to the Opposite Party directly.  It is also not in dispute that the complainant is in possession of the said apartment since 2009.   The only dispute raised by the complainant is that the Opposite Parties had not come forward to register the sale deed and there is a delay in executing the registered sale deed and hence claims for compensation of  Rs.10,00,000/- and interest paid towards EMIs to the tune of Rs.69,72,656/-.

9.       During the course of arguments, the complainant admits that he is due towards sale consideration and also ready to pay the amount at the time of registration.  The advocate for Opposite Party also suggested if the complainant ready to pay the balance due amount, they are ready to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant.  Anyhow, as per the agreement, there is a delay in registration of the sale deed.  We notice that the complainant had issued a legal notice to register the sale deed, but the Opposite Party for the best reasons known to t hem have not come forward to register the sale deed.  Hence, it is just and proper to award Rs.1,00,000/- compensation for not registering the said property in favour of the complainant well within time.   Accordingly, it is just and proper to direct the Opposite Parties to register the said property by registering the sale deed in favour of the complainant by receiving outstanding due payable towards registration of the sale deed from the complainant.  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-

:ORDER:

The complaint is allowed with cost.

The Opposite Parties are directed to register the said property by registering the sale deed in favour of the complainant by receiving outstanding due towards registration of the sale deed from the complainant.

The Opposite Parties are further directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh Only) to the complainants towards compensation and Rs.10,000-00 (Rs.Ten Thousand only) towards costs.

The Opposite Parties are further directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and complainant is also directed to co-operate the Opposite Party in this regard.

Further, the complainant is at liberty to initiate proceedings against the Opposite Parties for non compliance of the order as per the C.P. Act.

Send a copy of this order to both parties.

Sd/-                                                                                   Sd/-

Member.                                                               Judicial Member.

Tss