Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

cc/09/2947

Smt. Prapulla Devi. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Presidency Elite. - Opp.Party(s)

17 Dec 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/09/2947

Smt. Prapulla Devi.
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

M/S. Presidency Elite.
Sri . V, Bhaskar Reddy.
...........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 ON: 14.12.2009 DISPOSED ON: 26.07.2010 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 26TH JUJY 2010 PRESENT:- SRI. B.S.REDDY PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO.2947/2009 COMPLAINANT Smt. Prapulla Devi, W/o Sri. Basavaraj Bhiradar, Aged about 30 years, R/at No.866, F – 1, ‘Pearl White Residency’, D Block, Sahakarnagar, Bangalore – 560 092. Advocate: Sri. C.S. Dwarakanath V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. M/s Presidency Elite, Having its Registered Office at No.895/1, “Skanda”, 14th Cross, Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore – 560 086. Rep: by its Managing Director. Sri. V. Bhaskar Reddy. 2. Sri. V. Bhaskar Reddy, Managing Partner, M/s Presidency Elite, Having its Registered Office at No.895/1, “Skanda”, 14th Cross, Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore – 560 086. Advocate: Sri C.P.Dhananjaya O R D E R S SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT The complainant filed this complaint u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act of 1986, seeking direction against Opposite Parties (herein after called as O.Ps) to refund an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest at 24% p.a. and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. 2. In the complaint it is stated that OP-2 representing himself as Managing Partner of OP-1 represented that they are doing business in real estate and developing and constructing apartments in and around Bangalore. A brochure was issued to show that they have developed and constructed apartments. The complainant believing the OP agreed to purchase a site measuring 1500 sq. ft. for a total consideration of Rs.9,00,000/- and paid advance consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- and entered into an agreement to purchase on 14.03.2008. The balance amount of Rs.6,00,000/- was agreed to be paid within one month from the date of approval of the layout. Till date OPs have not obtained necessary permission for the formation of the layout. The complainant got issued legal notice to repay the amount paid towards advance consideration with interest. OP offered to give alternative site in the layouts formed and requested four months time to repay the amount, OPs have not refunded the amount. OPs failed to register the site or return the advance amount; hence there is deficiency in service. The complaint filed seeking the above stated reliefs. 3. On appearance, OP filed version admitting that the complainant agreed to purchase site measuring 1500 sq. ft. for a total consideration of Rs.9,00,000/- and paid Rs.3,00,000/- as advance consideration and entered into sale agreement dated 14.03.2008. It is contended that the OP informed the complainant that the project was incomplete because of not getting the conversion order from the concerned authority. The act of OP is not intentional one, but a bonafide reason. OP has not committed any deficiency of service. OP is ready to give the alternative site formed in ‘M/s Royal County’ or ‘M/s Royal Orchids’. If the complainant is not interested in the alternative site; OP is ready to return the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with nominal interest. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint. 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed affidavit evidence and produced documents. OP-2 filed affidavit evidence in support of the defence version. 5. Arguments of the complainant side heard, arguments of OP side taken as heard. Points for consideration are: Point No.1:- Whether the complainant proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No.2:- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No.3:- To what Order? 6. We record our findings on the above points are: Point No.1:- Affirmative. Point No.2:- Affirmative in part. Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 7. At the out set it is not at dispute that the OPs engaged in the business of real estate offered to sell a site measuring 1500 sq. ft. in the project undertaken by them by name ‘Presidency Elite’ situated in Chikkaballapur Taluk, Kolar District for total sale consideration of Rs.9,00,000/- and executed sale agreement by receiving advance sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- on 14.03.2008. The balance consideration of Rs.6,00,000/- was agreed to be paid within one month from the date of approval of the layout from the concerned authority. OP was unable to full fill its obligation on account of permission being not granted for conversion and for formation of the layout. OP has offered to sell alternative sites in other layouts formed and approved, but the complainant is not prepared to accept the said offer. OP has fairly admitted in the reply to the notice stating that it is prepared to refund the amount within four months. OP is not denying the fact of the agreement being executed and receipt of the advance sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- and also it’s liability to refund the amount. The reply notice is dated 29.09.2009, OP failed to refund the amount within four months as undertaken in the reply notice. The failure of OP in forming the layout and registering the site or in not refunding the amount, amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Under these circumstances we are of the view that the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount with interest at 12% p.a. with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part. OPs are directed to refund an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of payment, till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within four 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 him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 26th day of July 2010.) PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER Snm: