BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE.
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF MAY 2022
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 2518/2017
Subramanya Construction and Development Company Ltd., A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, Having its office at No.42, Industrial Suburb, 2nd Stage, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore 560 022, Represented by its Managing Director Sri K.N. Balasubramanyam. (By Sri A. Sampath) | ……Appellant/s |
V/s
1. | Sri C. Nagasrinivas, S/o S. Chandrashekaraiah, Aged about 43 years, Residing at No.5, 7A Cross, Dattagalli, 3rd Stage, Kanakadasa Nagar, Mysore 570 022. (By Sri B.S. Venkataraman) | …Respondent/s |
2. | The Chairman, Karnataka Housing Board, Cauvery Bhavan, K.R. Road, Bangalore. | |
3. | The Office in Charge, Karnataka Housing Board, Swimming Pool Road, Saraswathipuram, Mysore 570 009. (By Sri R.A. Kulkarni for R-2 & 3) | |
ORDER
BY SMT. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI, MEMBER
1. The appellant/Opposite Party No.1 has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.06.10.2017 passed in CC.No.117/2017 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore.
2. The facts leading to the appeal are as hereunder;
It is the case of the complainant that the marketing staff of the Opposite Parties approached the complainant and gave a details about the their Integrated Township Project with KHB, Mysuru and gave a details of M/s Subramanya Construction and Development Company Limited, there was an assurance to acquire the land to an extent of 200 acres, the project is being developed in association with KHB and it is ready for launch. The marketing staff personnel assured that all the procedures of allotment and registration will be completed within 3-4 months. Based on that assurance, the complainant applied for residential site at Kaveri Nagar, Mysore and deposited a sum of Rs.4,20,000/- and also paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash with the application. Later the complainant approached the Opposite Parties on several occasions to get the necessary documents i.e. sanctioned plan, layout plan, allotment letter and other documents. On 17.06.2016 one of the staff members called the complainant by phone and confirmed that the application has been registered and site No.188 in Kaveri Nagar has been assigned and allotment letter will be issued shortly. But, till January 2017, there is no progress and sign of completing the project and allotment of the site. Thereby, the complainant issued a legal notice by demanding the Opposite Parties to complete all the formalities and give possession of the site within 30 days or in the alternative to refund Rs.5,20,000/- with interest at 24% p.a. for which the Opposite Parties gave evasive reply. Hence, the complaint.
3. After service of notice, the Opposite Parties appeared through advocate. Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3 filed their common version, but, the Opposite Party No.1 did not file any version. The Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3 contended that the complaint is not maintainable against the Opposite Parties. The complainant is stranger to the Opposite Parties i.e. KHB office. It is the transaction between the Opposite Party No.1 which is not within the knowledge of KHB. It is only a private transaction between Opposite Party No.1 and the complainant. It is purely responsibility and risk of the complainant. There is no cause of action to tile the complaint. There is no any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3, hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaint in part and directed Opposite Parties jointly and severally refund Rs.4,20,000/- within interest at 18% p.a. from 28.01.2014, till payment along with costs and compensation.
5. Being aggrieved by the said Order, the appellant/ Opposite Party No.1 is in appeal. Heard the arguments of both parties.
6. Perused the appeal memo, the Order passed by the District Commission and materials on record, we noticed that it is an admitted fact that the Respondent No.1 had applied for an allotment of site at Kaveri Nagar, Mysore being developed by the appellant in joint venture with Respondent Nos.2 & 3. The Respondent No.1 deposited Rs.4,20,000/- as an initial deposit towards the site through DD.No.478980 dt.27.01.2014, but, there is no documents about Rs.1,00,000/- paid by the Respondent No.1 by cash with application to the appellant.
7. On perusal we noticed that the District Commission after considering all the facts came to the conclusion that the Respondent No.1 had submitted copy of the application to the appellant title of the documents of KHB housing project a joint venture between SCDCL (Subramanya Construction & Development Co., Ltd.,) & KHB (Karnataka Housing Board) at Kurugalli, Mysore and further DD of Rs.4,20,000/- was purchased in the name of SCDCL/KHB escrow account. However, there is no anything on record to show that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by the complainant in cash with the application.
8. The appellant further contended that the purpose of allotment requires time as it is through Government agency and no time was also agreed upon by the appellant to allot the site. Moreover, the impugned order of the District Commission is an exparte order for the appellant, he has not contested the case before the District Commission, but, in another para of the appeal memo, the appellant has contended that the appellant is even now ready to allot the site in favour of Respondent No.1 as promised immediately when all the formalities of formation of layout was completed.
9. Perused the order passed by the District Commission. The Respondent No.1 has applied for the site and paid initial payment of Rs.4,20,000/- through DD in the year 2014 which is admitted by the appellant. Now we are in the year 2022 there is a lapse of 8 years and inspite of several attempts and requests and even though service of legal notice, the appellant has not made any efforts to issue allotment letter of the site No.188 in Kaveri Nagar to the Respondent No.1. The complainant cannot made to wait indefinitely for allotment letter of the site and possession of the site. Hence, it is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. Hence, the appellant cannot denied to refund the amount paid by the Respondent No.1 and compensation. Hence, in our opinion the demand of the complainant seeking refund of the amount along with interest is fully justified and the order passed by the District Commission is just and proper and no interference is required. Hence, the following;
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted the District Commission for disbursement of the same to the complainant.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
