Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/10/1239

Sri.Hanumegowda - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Shree Enclave - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.B.J.Veerendra Kumar

24 Aug 2010

ORDER


BEFORE THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN,Ph:22352624
No:8, 7th floor, Sahakara bhavan, Cunningham road, Bangalore- 560052.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/10/1239

Sri.Hanumegowda
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

M/s.Shree Enclave
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Anita Shivakumar. K 2. Ganganarsaiah 3. Sri D.Krishnappa

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

The complaint is now posted for affidavit evidence of the Op. Advocate for Op prays time. At this stage, the counsel for the complainant invited our attention to Para 5 of the version filed by the Op and submitted that Op has admitted his liability and stated that if the complainant is not interested in the alternative site, they are prepared to return Rs.6.00 lakhs paid by the complainant and therefore, the complaint may be allowed by passing suitable order for refund of money. Counsel further submits that if the Op had allotted a site to the complainant as promised, the complainant would have got the site with appreciation in its cost but because of the denial of the allotment, the complainant has suffered monetarily and has prayed for awarding damages in addition. Where as the counsel for the Op submitted that there was no malafide on the part of the Op in not providing site. As the conversion was not granted by the competent authority Op was not in a position to form layout. Therefore, Op has readily come forward to re-pay the money and therefore, submitted for passing suitable order. Considering the admission of the Op regarding receipt of Rs.6.00 lakhs from the complainant and the hurryness of the Op in collecting such huge money from the intended buyers and the advantage he had in making use of the money and they have done so without anticipating the hurdles that may cone in the way. Therefore, Op having used the complainant’s money for all these years, is liable to pay interest at a higher rate. Considering the fact that the Op has invested the complainant’s money to his advantage and having acquired land at a lower rate is now benefited because of the escalation of the cost of the land. Hence, for the above reason, we pass the following order. O R D E R Complaint is allowed. Op is directed to repay Rs.6.00 lakhs to the complainant with interest @ 18% p.a from the date of receipt of the deposit amount till it is refunded. Op shall repay that amount with interest within 30 days from the date of this order. Op shall also pay cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.




......................Anita Shivakumar. K
......................Ganganarsaiah
......................Sri D.Krishnappa