Complaint Filed on:25.02.2014 |
Disposed On:26.10.2015 |
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN
26th DAY OF OCTOBER 2015
PRESENT:- | SRI. P.V SINGRI | PRESIDENT |
| SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA | MEMBER |
COMPLAINANTS | Sri.Srinivasa Ponnanuri, S/o P. Ramakrishna Rao, Aged about 42 years and Mrs.Kamala Keshi Raju, Aged about 30 years, W/o Srinivasa Ponnanuri, Both are residing at No.425/B, 2nd Main Road, Mathikere, Bangalore-560054. Advocate – Sri.R.Vaidyanathan V/s |
OPPOSITE PARTY | M/s. Samyuktha Enclave, Represented by Bhaskar Reddy, Managing Director, No.604, Vaishnavi Paradise, Sangam Circle, 8th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560 011. Residence No.1, 4th Main, Kuvempu Nagar, Doddkallasandra, Kanakapura Road, Bangalore-560062. |
O R D E R
SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT
The complainants have filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party (herein after referred as OP) with a prayer to direct the OP to allot them site as per the agreement of sale or in the alternative direct the OP to refund Rs.4,50,000/- together with interest and compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- with cost of litigation.
2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:
That the OP is a developer of sites and offered to sell a site to the complainants and accordingly the complainants entered into an agreement with the OP for purchase of site on 15.09.2006 in pursuance of their application dated 21.08.2006 and paid an advance amount of Rs.4,50,000/- by cheque. The complainants thereafter insisted the OP to execute the registered sale deed of the site but the OP went on postponing the same. Therefore, the complainants got issued a legal notice dated 16.01.2013 and despite notice, the OP failed either to execute the registered sale deed in respect of the site or refund the advance amount of Rs.4,50,000/- received from them. Therefore, the complainants are constrained to file this complaint.
For the aforesaid reasons the complainants pray for an order directing the OP to allot them a site and execute the registered sale deed or in the alternative to refund advance amount of Rs.4,50,000/- received from them together with compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for causing them mental agony and harassment together with costs of litigation.
3. Despite publication of notice in the newspaper the OP failed to appear and was placed ex-parte.
4. The complainants thereafter filed the affidavit evidence in lieu of oral evidence. Complainants also submitted their written arguments.
5. Perused the allegations made in the complaint, sworn testimony of the complainants, documents filed along with the complaint and other materials placed on record also perused the application filed U/s.5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the complaint.
6. The complainants have produced the copy of agreement of sale dated 15th September 2006, to substantiate their allegations that the OP entered into an agreement of sale of a site bearing No.257 in favour of the complainants for a sum of Rs.19,60,200/- and received a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- through cheque on the same day. The complainant No.1 who filed his affidavit by way of evidence reiterated the allegations made in the complaint and contended that despite repeated demands OP failed to execute the registered sale deed in respect of the site mentioned in the agreement of sale and also failed to refund the advance amount received under the sale agreement. The OP has failed to meet the demands made by the complainants. The complainants got issued a legal notice to the OP. The copy of which is also produced. It is apparent from the material placed on record that the OP has failed to execute the registered sale deed in respect of site No.257 in favour of the complainants in pursuance of the agreement of sale dated 15th September 2006 without assigning any reasons. The OP has also not responded to the legal notice issued to him. The OP is duty bound either to execute the sale deed in respect of the site in terms of the agreement of sale in question or refund the advance amount to the complainants in the event he is unable to execute the sale deed for any valid cause. The OP has failed to appear in the case despite service of notice and contest the claim put forth by the complainants.
7. We don’t find any reasons to disbelieve the sworn testimony of the complainants which is supported by the documents. The complainants failed to furnish necessary information as to the availability of the site as mentioned in the agreement of sale. Therefore, we feel that the OP has to be directed to refund the advance amount to the complainants together with interest @ 18% p.a. Looking to the appreciation of the properties in and around Bangalore, we are of the opinion that the complainants would not be able to purchase a site in the very same locality for the price mentioned in the agreement of sale. Therefore, the OP has to be directed to pay adequate damages/compensation to the complainants for the deficiency in service on his part. Certainly the conduct of the OP must have put the complainants to lot of hardship and inconvenience. They must have also been undergone mental agony all these years due to the deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
8. Perused the application filed by the complainants U/s.5 of the condonation of delay as well as the affidavit in support of the same for the reasons mentioned in the accompanying affidavit, the delay in filing the complaint is condoned. For the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that the OP shall have to be directed to refund the advance amount of Rs.4,50,000/- received from the complainants together with interest @ 18% p.a from the date of receipt till the date of realization. Further the OP has to be directed to pay damages/compensation in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainants together with litigation cost of Rs.4,000/-.
9. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint filed by the complainants U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is allowed in part. The OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- to the complainants together with interest @ 18% p.a from the date of agreement of sale till the date of realization. Further the OP is directed to pay damages/compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainants for the deficiency in service on his part together with litigation cost of Rs.4,000/-.
The OP shall comply the order passed by this Forum within six weeks from today.
Send the copy of the order to both the parties free of costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 26th day of October 2015)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Vln*
Complainants | - | Sri.Srinivasa Ponnanuri, and Mrs.Kamala Keshi Raju, Bangalore-560054. |
| V/s | |
Opposite Party | | M/s. Samyuktha Enclave, Represented by Bhaskar Reddy, Managing Director, Bangalore. |
Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainants dated 08.06.2015.
- Sri.Srinivasa Ponnanuri,
Documents produced by the complainants:
1) | Document No.1 is the copy of agreement of sale dated 15.09.2006. |
2) | Document No.2 is the copy of application form dated 21.08.2006. |
3) | Document No.3 is the copy of legal notice dated 15.01.2013. |
4) | Document No.4 is the paper publication dated 24.12.2014. |
OP - Absent
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Vln*
