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

DATED 24^th DAY OF JULY 2023

ORDER

SMT. K. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR, MEMBER

Complainant filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, seeking direction to OP to refund the amount of Rs.1,08,000/-with interest of 18% per annum from the date of payment, to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony, hardship and deficiency of service, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards cost of litigation and such other reliefs.

2. Brief facts of this case are as follows:-

Smt. Lakshmidevamma.T, complainant’s mother worked as Group-
D employee, in KREDL, Bangalore. OP being promoter of the company approached complainant’s mother in her office and informed about the layout forming in and around, Devamachohalli village, Tavarekere hobli, Bangalore south in various survey numbers. OP even shown the relevant documents for the verification of the said survey numbers and represented that OP will execute un-registered agreement of sale on payment of 30% of sale consideration and after that, execution of sale agreement within 6 months will be done.  Complainant also stated that OP will form the entire layout within 6 months. Believing the words of OP, complainant’s mother who is working in KREDL, Bangalore informed the same with her office staff and even she shown interest to purchase the sites in 20*30 dimensions of OP’s layouts. Accordingly complainant’s mother with intention to invest money on 3 sites (20*30) in her name and also in her daughters name. Therefore she paid Rs.3,24,000/- as advance amount for 3 sites (Rs.1,08,000/- each) i.e 30% of advance amount out of sale consideration. She paid Rs.2,00,000/- on 23.05.2019 by way of cheque bearing No.815618 drawn on Vijaya Bank, Indira Nagar, Bangalore in favour of OP Company. Even she issued cheque for Rs.1,24,000/- on 03.07.2019, bearing No.815619. In pursuance to the payment OP has executed sale agreement on 10.07.2019 in respect to site No.82 measuring east to west 20 feet and north to south 30 feet, total 600 square feet formed in converted land bearing survey No.27/1, 247/2, 27/3, total 2 acre 26 guntas lands converted from agricultural to non-agricultural residential purposes. Vide its office memorandum bearing No.ALN(ST)SR/24/2016-17 and ALN(ST)SR/25/2016-17 dated 24.01.2017 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore situated at Devamachohalli village, Tavrekere hobli, Bangalore South (each is herein after reffered as ‘schedule property’). The said schedule property in favour of complainants for the total sale consideration of Rs.3,60,000/-. Complainant further stated that OP has received Rs.1,08,000/- as advance amount by way of cheque bearing No.815618 and 815619, on 23.05.2019 & 03.07.2019 respectively. OP has acknowledged the receipt of cheques. Complainant stated in her complaint that at the time of entering into the agreement of sale OP has assured to provide the residential layout by providing civic amenities like Tar road, water connection to the individual, sewage, drainage, electricity, compound wall, children’s park, Jogging track and further agreed to complete sale transaction within 180 days from the date of sale agreement. But even after lapse of more than 6 months OP have not bothered to develop the layout nor taken approval from the competent authority, OP is deliberately not formed the layout and not provided the civic amenities as they assured.

3. Complainant and her mother have requested OP to execute the registered sale deed in respect of the schedule property but for one or the other reason OP has postponed without executing the registered sale deed. In the month of July 2021 OP has contacted complainant and requested to give another 6 months time to execute the same as they formed the layout at the earliest. Accordingly on 15.07.2021 OP has executed another assignment sale agreement in respect of schedule property mentioning the execution of 6 months time to execute registered sale deed.

4. Complainant alleged that when the OP is prolonging matter to execute the sale deed complainant learnt that OP is misleading the public like complainant by making false promises and assurances to sale the plots/sites making the public to invest their hard earned money with OP. Complainant also alleged that the place shown by OP is still vacant plain land without any development. The attitude of OP is exhibiting the real intention of misleading and duping the public. Hence after realizing the intention of OP complainant requested to refund the advance amount of Rs.1,08,000/-  with interest but OP is trying to escape from the liability. It shows OP is utterly failed to fulfill the promises and rendered deficiency of service as caused inconvenience, hardship, mental agony to the complainant since complainant has invested her hard earned money to have her own house.

 5. Complainant caused legal notice on 08.02.2022 calling upon the OP to refund amount with interest of 18% per annum and compensation for the inconvenience. But the legal notice returned with endorsement as ‘no such person’, ‘door locked’ and ‘not claimed’, it shows OP is deliberately evading to receive the legal notice of complainant. Complainant also alleging that OP has collected huge amount from the bonafide purchaser like complainant like enrichment of himself with hard earned money of purchasers. Complainant stated that the price in and around Bangalore city has appreciated not less than twice but the complainant invested her money in the year 2019 May, went in vain.

 6. Complainant alleged that OP is indulging in unfair trade practice and allotted the same site to the different persons, by showing same allotted area in different project collected the substantial sale consideration from buyers. Therefore complainant stated deficiency of service on the part of OP by non-execution of sale deed after receiving the advance amount towards sital value. Hence she approached this commission for the relief sought above. 

7. Notice sent to OP through RPAD. Returned as ‘address left’ and ‘always door lock’. Hence, commission ordered to issue notice through paper publication. The service held sufficient. OP was absent on the date of appearance. Hence OP placed Ex-parte. The stage is set down to adduce evidence of complainant, accordingly complainant has adduced her affidavit evidence by way of oral evidence and filed 6 documents which are marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. Heard counsel for complainant and we perused the materials on record.

8. On the basis of the pleadings of the party the following points will arise for our consideration :-

i) Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of services on the part of OP’s?

ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get reliefs as sought in the complaint?

 iii) What order?

9. Our answers to the about points are as follows:-

Point No.1:- In the affirmative

Point No.2:- Partly affirmative

Point No.3:- As per the final order.

REASONS

10. Point No.1:- Upon going through the sale agreement entered by both the parties on 10.07.2019 discloses that OP has formed layout around Devamachohalli village, Tavarekere Hobli, Bangalore South. Complainant’s mother being employee of KREDL, Bangalore, believing the assurances of OP and decided to purchase sites in the said layout formed by OP.  The very sale agreement discloses that OP has fixed the amount of entire sital value as Rs.3,60,000/-. As per the condition of OP, the buyer should pay 30% of sale consideration amount before the sale agreement. Accordingly complainant has paid Rs.1,08,000/- in 2 installments dated 23.05.2019 for Rs.1,00,000/- and on 03.07.2019 for Rs.8,000/- by way of cheque drawn from Vijaya Bank in favor of OP. The payment is revealed in the very sale agreement which is at Ex.P1 and complainant also produced bank statement copy to prove the payment. The document Ex.P1 also discloses that complainant has to pay balance Rs.2,52,000/- towards site within 180 days that too before execution of sale deed. Complainant’s mother decided to purchase 3 sites measuring 20*30. One for herself and two for her daughters, has paid Rs.3,24,000/- towards 3 sites at the rate of 30% of sale consideration which is at Ex.P.2. With this regard complainant’s mother paid on 23.05.2019 and 03.07.2019 for Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,24,000/- respectively, which is disclosed in sale agreement. In pursuance to the payment, OP has executed the sale agreement on 10.07.2019 in respect of site No.82 measuring 20*30 formed in converted land bearing survey No.27/1, 27/2, 27/3.

11. It is pertinent to note that OP has also assured to provide the residential layout by proving civic amenities like tar road, water connection to the individual sites, sewage, drainage, compound wall, children’s park, jogging park within 180 days from the date of sale agreement which is at Ex.P.4. Complainant waited more than 6months to complete the formation of layout as OP assured. OP did not come forward to develop the layout nor taken approval from the competed authorities, OP deliberately delayed the formation of layout and basic amenities. Complainant and her mother have requested OP to execute registered sale deed in respect of a schedule property. OP keep on postponing the issue for one or the other reasons without executing the registered sale deed. When the complainant personally approached OP in month of July 2021, OP requested to give another 6 months time to execute the sale deed. Accordingly on 15.07.2021 OP has executed another assignment of sale agreement in respect of scheduled property requesting 6 months time to execute the registered sale deed. Complainant further requested OP by issuing legal notice on 08.02.2022 calling upon OP No.2 to refund the amount with 18% of interest per annum and with compensation which is at Ex.P.4. But the legal notice sent to OP, not served on OP’s, returned un-served. Hence complainant approached this commission to redress her grievance and remedy.

12. By perusing the documents on record and the evidence adduced by complainant even after receiving the amount of Rs.1,08,000/- towards the sital value as 30% of sale consideration, OP did not bother to execute sale deed. OP neither come before this commission to prove his genunity nor execute the sale deed as he assured. Hence it shows his negligence and deficiency of service on the part of OP, for that OP has to compensate to complainants. The evidence placed by the complainant are unchallenged in this case. On the above reasons, complainant has proved that OP has caused deficiency of service by not executing the sale deed as assured even after several requests by the complainant. In our considered view, OP is misleading the public by its misrepresentation. Therefore, we answer Point No.1 in affirmative.

11. Point No.2:- Complainant paid Rs.1,08,000/- for the site No.82 measuring 20*30 in Devamachohalli village, Tavarekere Hobli, Bangalore South. But OP did not execute sale deed till to today, retained the amount without giving any service to complainant, amounts to deficiency of service on his part. Hence OP is liable to refund the amount of RS.1,08,000/- with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of respective payments. OP caused mental agony, hardship to the complainant. Believing the representation of OP, complainant invested Rs.1,08,000/- towards 20*30 site and waited for long time from 2019. In case, complainant invested her hard earned money on other layout, she could construct her own house and spend her family life peacefully. But OP did not execute the sale deed and complainant deprived by privileges. Even at present she can’t get sites with the money she gets refund from OP because of appreciation of site value. Even OP kept the complainant in dark without disclosing the status of development, might caused her mental agony & sufferings. Hence, considering all such facts, in our considered view complainant is entitle to get Rs.60,000/- as a compensation. For that OP is liable to pay compensation or Rs.60,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation. For the foregoing reasons we answer Point NO.2 in partly affirmative.

12. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion referred above, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

i) Complaint filed by complainant U/S 35 is hereby partly allowed.

ii) Op is liable to refund Rs.1,08,000/- with 10% interest per annum from the date of respective payments till realization.

iii) OP is further directed to pay Rs.60,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which OP is directed to pay 12% interest per annum on Award amount from the date of order till realization.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 24^th day of JULY, 2023)

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

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

NIL