BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE.
DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF AUGUST 2021
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO. 657/2015
Mr. Jaykumar, S/o Mr. E. Bhaskaran Nair, Aged about 52 years, R/at No.774, 4th Main Road, HAL 3rd Stage, Hosathippasandra, Bangalore. (By Sri K. Sundaram) | .…… Complainant/s |
V/s
M/s Sobha Highrise Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Having its office at “Sobha”, No.51/5, Sarjapura Marathahalli Outer Ring Road (ORR), Devarabisanahalli, Bellandur Post, Bangalore 560 008, Rep. by its Managing Director. (By Sri Madhukar Deshpande) | ... Opposite Party/ies |
ORDER
Mr. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant alleging unfair trade practice against the Opposite Party in not returning the entire amount paid towards the purchase of flat and prayed for refund of the amount of Rs.24,42,541/- with interest at 18% p.a. on a sum of Rs.80,03,238/- and Rs.24,42,541/- along with Rs.15 lakhs towards mental agony and cost of litigation.
2. The averments in the complaint are as hereunder;
It is the case of the complainant that he along with his daughter has entered into a Construction Agreement dt.04.01.2013 and Sale Agreement dt.04.01.2014 for a total sale consideration amount of Rs.1,01,36,195/- towards purchase of flat. Accordingly, the complainant had paid Rs.80,03,238/- as on 04.01.2014. After payment, the Opposite Party had not handed over the possession of flat and executed a Sale Agreement for which he requested for refund of the amount and accordingly, after request, the Opposite Party paid an amount of Rs.55,60,697/- and remaining amount of Rs.24,42,541/- was not paid. Hence, the complaint.
3. After service of notice, the Opposite Party appeared before the Commission through his counsel and filed version and contended that it is true that the Sale Agreement was cancelled and an amount of Rs.55,60,697/- was paid and the same was endorsed by the complainant and the balance amount of Rs.24,42,541/- was adjusted and reinvested by the complainant towards the other project called “Sobha Silicon Oasis” and requested for allotment of flat bearing No.LI-6182, accordingly, they have reinvested the amount of the complainant towards that project. Hence, the Opposite Party submits that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. The complainant has filed their affidavit evidence and documents at Ex.C1 to C6 are marked. The Opposite Party has also filed their affidavit evidence and documents at Ex.R1 to R7 are marked. Heard both counsels.
5. On perusal, the following points will arise for our consideration;
(i) Whether the complaint deserves to be allowed?
(ii) What order?
6. The findings to the above points are;
(i) Affirmative
(ii) As per final order
REASONS
7. On perusal of the affidavit evidence of both parties and the documents produced before us, there is no dispute that both parties have entered into a Sale Agreement dt.04.01.2014 and Construction Agreement dt.04.01.2013 for execution of the Sale Deed in favour of the complainant towards purchase of Flat No.K2-4071. It is also not in dispute that after cancellation of the Sale Agreement, the Opposite Party has refunded a sum of Rs.55,60,697/- out of Rs.80,03,238/- which was paid at the time of execution of Sale Agreement. The only dispute of the complainant is that the Opposite Party had not refunded the entire amount of Rs.80,03,238/- without any valid reason the Opposite Party has not paid balance of Rs.24,42,541/-. Whereas the Opposite Party in its version and affidavit has contended that the complainant has suggested and proposed to invest some amount towards another project called “Sobha Silicon Oasis” and the same was accordingly done. The Opposite Party further submits that they are not liable to pay any amount and also not liable to pay any interest on the amount of Rs.80,03,238/-. On going through the correspondence made by the complainant to Opposite Party, we noticed that the complainant had emailed one letter stating that his daughter is not interested in continuing the investment on the new project and requested for payment of the balance amount and also noticed that she has not intimated the Opposite Party to reinvest the said amount towards the new project. She categorically mentioned that the Opposite Party not supposed to reinvest the said amount arbitrarily. Hence, basing on the email, the Opposite Party cannot reinvest the amount without the consent of the complainant. Hence, non-refund of the balance amount of Rs.24,42,541/- to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the following;
ORDER
The complaint is hereby allowed with costs of Rs.25,000/-.
The Opposite Party is hereby directed to refund a sum of Rs.24,42,541/- to the complainant along with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of last repayment made by the Opposite Party, till realization.
The Opposite Parties are granted further 30 days time to comply the same from the date of this Order.
Forward free copies to both the parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
