Date of filing:16.11.2021

                                                       Date of Disposal:03.01.2023

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 03^RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.429/2021

PRESENT:

SRI.RAJU K.S,

SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR:MEMBER

Dr. Sunil K.S. Gowda

Aged about 48 years

R/o No.205, Wild flower Hall

Rustam Bagh,

Bengaluru 560 017.

Ph:9448105651                        …          COMPLAINANT

(Complainant represented by Mr. Stanley Sam, Adv.)

M/s Spatika Developers and

Constructions Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Managing Director

Mr. Lokesh GD.,

Having its office at No.322

4^th Cross, OMBR Layout,

Banaswadi,

Bangalore 560 043          …      OPPOSITE PARTY No.1

Mr. Lokesh GD

Managing Director at

M/s Spatika Developers and

Constructions Pvt. Ltd.,

Having its office at No.322

4^th Cross, OMBR Layout,

Banaswadi,

Bangalore 560 043         

Also at: Solari Trinit Venture Pvt. Ltd.,

No.297, 16^th Cross,

Sadashivanagar

Bengaluru 560 080.          …     OPPOSITE PARTY No.2

(Opposite party No.1 & 2: Exparte)

//JUDGEMENT//

BY SRI.SHIVARAMA K, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s 34 and 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 seeking for a direction to the opposite parties to return Rs.5,62,500/- with interest @ 18%  per annum and a sum of Rs.1,45,000/- towards legal expenses and damages and for other reliefs as this commission deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

2.     Even though notice been served, Opposite party No.1 and 2 remained absent and are placed exparte.

3.      It is the case of the complainant that, the complainant had paid Rs.5,62,500/- towards purchase of a site and the complainant had booked a site bearing No. 206 in the project of Opposite party named  “Nandi Nature Residency”. Further even though the Opposite parties have promised that within 6 to 9 months  from the date of Agreement to sell  i.e. 20.09.2016 opposite parties would register the site and transfer the property in favour of the complainant , the opposite parties did not develop the project at all . Hence the complainant sought for return of the amount paid. Further during the pendency of the case, Opposite parties have issued cheques in several times and complainant could not present the cheques for clearing as the words in figures and numbers did not match in the cheques. Hence the act of the Opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service.

4. To prove the case, the complainant (PW1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and got marked EX.P1 to P6 documents.

5. Counsel for the complainant has filed his written arguments.

6.      Heard arguments.

 7. The points that would arise for consideration are as under:

i) Whether the complainant proves that the act of the Opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice?

ii) Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?

    iii) Whether the complainant is entitled for the  

         relief as sought?

     iv) What order?   

  8.   Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 & 2:  In affirmative

Point No.3 :  Partly in affirmative    

Point No.4 :  As per the final order for the following;

REASONS

9. POINT NO.1 & 2:- Complainant (PW-1) has reiterated the fact stated in the complaint in the affidavit filed in the form of his evidence in chief. In support of the oral evidence the complainant has produced copy of the brochure vide Ex P1, copy of the sale agreement dated 20.09.2016 vide Ex P2, Copy of the payment receipt dated 21.07.2016, Ex P4 is the cheque issued by the Opposite parties dated 13.08.2021 and Ex P6 is the copy of the Aadhar card.

10.        On perusal of Ex P3 receipt dated 21.07.2016 issued by the Opposite parties it appears that complainant had paid Rs.5,62,500/-. Ex P2 is the Agreement for sale dated 20.09.2016. The total consideration in the agreement for sale is of Rs.18,00,000/-. According to PW-1, Opposite parties have promised that within 6 to 9 months from the date of agreement to sell i.e. 20.09.2015 they would register the site in the name of the of the complainant. Further the same has not been materialized.  Further the complainant has also produced cheque issued by the Opposite parties for a sum of Rs. 5,62,000/- in favour of the complainant. It reveals that there is fault of Opposite parties and the Opposite parties agreed to return the amount taken. I feel the act of the Opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and as the promise given has not been carried out it amounts to deficiency of service on the part of Opposite parties. Further the oral and documentary evidence has not been challenged by the Opposite parties by filing version and giving rebuttal evidence. Hence I answer Point No.1 and 2 in affirmative.

POINT NO.3:

11.        Complainant claimed for return of the amount of Rs.5,62,500/-.  The complainant is entitle for the said amount.  The complainant claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum. I feel the same is highly an exorbitant one. Hence the complainant is entitle interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 21.07.2016 as per Ex.P3 till realization. Further the complainant claimed Rs.1,45,000/- towards damages and legal expenses. I feel the complainant is entitle for a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards damages and for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost from the Opposite parties.  Hence, I answer Point No.3 partly in affirmative. 

12. POINT NO.4:- In view of the discussion made above, we proceed to pass the following;

The complaint is allowed in part.

The Opposite party No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,62,500/- to the complainant along with interest at 9% per annum from 21.07.2016 till realization and a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards damages and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

The opposite party No.1 and 2 shall comply the order within 30 days. In case, the opposite parties fail to comply the order within the said period, the above said amount of Rs.30,000/- carries interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.

Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

  (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 03^rd day of January, 2023)                                            

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)    (SHIVARAMA. K)    
•  

//ANNEXURE//

Witness examined for the complainants side:

Dr. Sunil K.S Gowda, who being Complainant has filed his affidavit.

Documents marked for the complainants side:

1. Copy of the brochure.
2. Copy of the Sale agreement dt.20.09.2016.
3. Copy of the payment receipt dt.21.07.2016.
4. Copy of the cheque issued by Opposite party dated 13.08.2021.
5. Copy of legal notice dt.26.08.2021 with 3 returned RPAD covers and RPAD receipt.
6. Copy of the Aadhar card.

Witness examined for the opposite party side:                  

- Nil -

Documents marked for the opposite party side:

- Nil -

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA. K)    
•  

*RAK