COMPLAINT FILED ON: 15.11.2010
DISPOSED ON: 30.03.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
30TH MARCH 2011
PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.2585/2010
Complainant | Sri. Jagadish, S/o.Sri.B.N.Subbaraya, Residing at No.12, 8th Main road, Vyshnavi Layout, Vidyaranyapura, Bangalore-560 097. Advocate: Ramakrishna S. Hegde V/s. |
OPPOSITE PARTY | M/s. Presidency Elite, No.895/1, “Skanda” 14th Cross, Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore-560 086. Rep. by Partner Mr. V.Bhaskar Reddy Exparte |
O R D E R
SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT
This is a complaint filed u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. and pay compensation of Rs.2 lakhs with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of OP.
The case of the complainant to be stated in brief is that:-
2. OP executed agreement of sale dated 27.02.2008 agreeing to sell plot No.48, in a layout called “Presidency Elite” for total consideration of Rs.6,73,200/- under buy back scheme. The complainant paid total advance consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- and obtained the receipt dated 17.02.2008. OP under took to buy back the said plot with appreciation of 1/3rd value on the booking amount after six months. Since neither sale deed was registered as agreed nor amount was refunded, the complainant requested OP to refund amount for several times. OP issued letter dated 25.03.2009 assuring to refund the principle amount and benefit assured as on the date of settlement, as per the agreement would be refunded on 27.07.2009. Legal notice was issued demanding the refund of amount with interest. OP failed to refund the amount in spite of receipt of the notice. Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
3. In spite of service of notice OP failed to appear without any reasonable cause, hence placed exparte.
4. The complainant filed affidavit evidence and written arguments.
5. Arguments of the complainant heard.
6. After going through complaint averments, affidavit evidence of the complainant and the documents produced it is evident that OP executed agreement of sale dated 27.02.2008 marked as document No.1 acknowledging the receipt of amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as advance sale consideration towards the sale of plot No. 48 situated in layout called “Presidency Elite”. The receipt at document No.2 issued by OP reveals that advance sale consideration amount of Rs.2,50,000/- has been received by OP in respect of plot No.48. Further document No.3 the letter dated 25.03.2009 issued by OP clearly goes to show that OP has under took to refund the principle amount and benefit assured on 27.07.2009. In spite of such undertaking OP failed to refund the amount without any justifiable cause. The legal notice dated 30.08.2010 marked as document No.4 issued demanding the refund of the amount was served on OP as per the postal acknowledgement document No.6 but OP has failed to reply the notice and refund the amount. The affidavit evidence of the complainant is fully corroborated by the documentary evidence. There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged affidavit evidence and documentary evidence of the complainant. The very fact of OP remaining exparte goes a long way to hold that OP is admitted all the allegations made in the complaint. The act of OP in not refunding the amount as assured and failure to execute the sale deed of the plot by receiving the balance sale consideration amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complainant is entitled for refund of the amount with interest at 12% p.a. and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest at 12% p.a from the respective date of payments till 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 its communication.
(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 30th day of March 2011.)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
gm*
