COMPLAINTS FILED ON:22.10.2011
DISPOSED ON:28.03.2012.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
28th DAY OF MARCH-2012
PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT Nos.1944/2011
Complainant | R.Krishna Kishor S/o R.Sathyanarayana Murthy, Aged about 34 years, R/a. No.S-45, ‘Annapurana’, Kirloskar Colony, 3rd Stage, West of Chord Road, Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore-560 079. Adv:Sri.Siddharth B. Muchandi V/s |
OPPOSITE PARTY/S | M/s Sree Enclave, A Partnership concern Having its registered office at No.895/1, ‘Skanda’, 14th Cross, Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore-560 086, Represented by its Partner V.Bhaskar Reddy. Also at No.717, 2nd Floor, Poornashashi Complex, Modi Hospital Road, Bangalore-560 086. Also at No.1, Shreshta, 3rd Main Road, Before Purvi Residency, Kuvempunagar, Doddakalasandra, Kanakapura Main Road, Bangalore-560 062. Also at, Flat No:604, Sangam Circle, Vaishnavi Paradise, Banashankari Temple Junction, Jayanagar 8th Block, Bangalore. Adv:Sri.G.S.Suresh. |
COMMON ORDER
SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT
The complainant filed this complaints U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 seeking direction against the OP to pay damages of Rs.8,99,564/- with interest at 24% p.a. on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
2. OP though appeared through their counsel, failed to file version.
3.In order to substantiate complaint averments, the complainant filed affidavit evidence and produced documents.
4. Argument from complainant’s side heard.
5.We have gone through the complaint averments, the documents produced and affidavit evidence of the complainant. On the basis of these materials, it becomes clear that OP is a partnership concern engaged in Land Development and Real Estate forming residential layout and selling residential sites to individuals. The complainant entered into an agreement to purchase a site bearing No.7 in a layout called ‘Shree Enclave’ at Beemanahalli, Billakempanahalli Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagaram Taluk, Bangalore paid an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- as advance sale consideration and OP executed agreement deed marked as document No.1 on 08.12.2007. OP assured to obtain necessary approvals from appropriate authorities within 6 weeks. The complainant believing that assurance availed Bank loan from HDFC Bank, Basaveshwaranagar Branch for Rs.6,00,000/-and the same was paid through cheques to OP on 26.11.2007 Rs.5,00,000/- and on 29.11.2007 for Rs.1,00,000/-. OP has issued the receipts acknowledging the receipt of the amount. Even after lapse of more than 2 years, OP was not able to obtain necessary approvals. Since the complainant has availed the Bank loan, he has repaid the amount by applying for pre-closure and paid additional cost of pre-closure of Rs.18,084/-. The complainant paid interest on the Bank loan to an extent of Rs.1,99,564/-. The document Nos.5 & 6 reveals the payment of interest and pre-closure charges. When OP was not able to acquire any land and form any layout, the complainant has requested the OP by addressing a letter on 30.11.2009 to refund the amount paid with interest at 2.5% p.m. For the said letter OP has replied on 24.02.2010 as per document No.8 admitting the liability to refund the amount undertaking to repay the said amount by the end of August-2010. In spite of such undertaking given by OP, OP has not at all refunded any amount. Thus the complainant has claimed the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- paid as advance sale consideration and interest of Rs.1,99,564/- paid to the Bank for having availed the loan and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony in all Rs.8,99,564/-.
6. There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged affidavit evidence of the complainant and the documents produced. The document No.8 reply issued by OP clearly goes to show that OP had undertaken to refund the amount by the end of August-2010, but till date no amount has been refunded. The very fact of OP having not filed the version leads to draw inference that OP is admitting the claim of the complainant. When the OP was not able to form any layout and allot the site, it would have been fair enough on its part to refund the initial sale consideration received to the complainant. The act of OP neither forming any layout and allotting the site to the complainant nor refunding the initial sale consideration received, amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant is entitled for refund of the amount with interest at 18% p.a. by way of compensation and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.
Op is directed to refund an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 08.12.2007 till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to complainant.
This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.
Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 28th day of MARCH-2012.)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Cs.
