Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

cc/2009/2119

Smt, Anuradha Pattankar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Deccan Builders & Developers - Opp.Party(s)

11 Nov 2009

ORDER


BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. cc/2009/2119

Smt, Anuradha Pattankar
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

M/s. Deccan Builders & Developers
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 31-08-2009 DISPOSED ON: 11-11-2009 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 11TH NOVEMBER 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. B.S.REDDY PRESIDENT SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO.2119/2009 COMPLAINANT Smt.Anuradha Pattankar, D/o.Manik Rao Chakadi, Aged about 38 Years, R/at, No:2630, Sai Villa, ‘E’ Block, Sahakaranagar, Bangalore – 560 092. Advocate – Sri.N.Thimmegowda V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY M/s.Deccan Builders & Developers, A partnership Firm having its office at: No:164/B-43, above shanthi Uppahara, Jayanagar, 6th Block, Yediyur, Bangalore – 560 082. Represented by its Partners: 1. Sri. Ashok Reddy K.N. S/o.N.Nangi Reddy, Aged about 26 Years, 2. Sri. M.S.Prathap Kumar, S/o. M.D.Somegowda, Aged about 27 Years, 3. Sri. G.Ashok Kumar, S/o.Basavaraj, Aged about 28 Years, O R D E R SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT This complaint is filed u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act of 1986 seeking direction to Opposite Party (herein after called as OP) against the OP to refund an amount of Rs.4,65,000/- with 18% interest and compensation of Rs.30,000 with costs on an allegations of deficiency of service on the part of the OP. The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows: 2. The complainant attracted by the advertisement issued by OP. OP has formed a residential layout in the name and style “Deccan Aero Plaisance Layout” and developed the land bearing Survey No:125/1 situated at Mandibele village, Vijayapura Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, complainant registered herself as a projective buyer to purchase a site with the OP in the said project. Complainant entered into an agreement of sale dated 02-08-2008 with the OP, in respect of site No:55 totally measuring 1500 Sq.fts, which is situated in survey No:125/1 of Mandibele Village, Vijayapura Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. Complainant paid Rs.4,65,000/- as an advance amount to OP. OP assured the complainant to avail loan for balance consideration to enable the complainant to purchase the site. When complainant tried to obtain loan from the nationalized bank, bank rejected his application stating title deeds are not cleared. When OP failed to develop and register the said property in favour of complainant he felt deficiency on the part of the OP he got issued legal notice on 25/07/2009, inspite of service of notice OP failed to reply. Hence he filed this complaint for necessary reliefs. 3. On registration of the complaint, notice is sent to OP 1 to 3 inspite of service of notice OP 1 to 3 remained absent without sufficient reason or cause. Absence of the OP does not appears to be as bonafide and reasonable. Hence OP 1 to 3 placed exparte. 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments complainant filed affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP did not participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments heard. 5. It is the case of the complainant that he became the member of the project launched by the OP by name and style “Deccan Aero plaisance Layout” for developing residential layout formed at Survey No:125/1 of Mandibele village, Vijayapura Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. Complainant entered into a sale agreement with OP dated 02-08-2008 and paid advance payment of Rs.4,65,000/- to OP for purchasing a site bearing No:55 in the layout called Deccan Aero plaisance formed by OP measuring 1500 Sq.Fts. at Mandibele village, Vijayapura Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District by way of cheque bearing No:362296 for Rs.50,000/-, cheque bearing No:362298 for Rs.50,000/- and Rs.3,65,000/- cash to OP. OP issued the receipt date 02-08-2008 signed by both the parties, copy of the agreement, Bank statement and copy of the legal notice are produced by the complainant. 6. The evidence produced by the complainant supports the case of the complainant. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant. The non appearance of the OP even after the due service of notice leads us to draw an inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant. 7. When complainant tried to obtain the loan with the banks he is made to obtain the loan on the grounds title deeds in respect of the said site are not cleared. OP failed to provide clear title deed and further failed to develop the layout and register the same in favour of the complainant. Inspite of repeated request and demands OP is still making false promises inspite of service of legal notice dated 23-07-2009. OP failed to refund the amount to complainant. OP having retained such huge amount neither register site nor refunded the amount to complainant. This act of the OP made to deficiency in service. Complainant for no fault of her made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Hence for these reason we find it is a fit case to direct the OP to refund the amount with some compensation as prayed along with interest and costs. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed. OP is directed to refund Rs.4,65,000/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication. 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 11th day of November 2009.) MEMBER PRESIDENT NRS