BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 31^st DAY OF MAY 2016

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

The complainants have filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OPs) with a prayer to direct the OPs to refund them a sum of Rs.14,67,000/- together with interest @ 12% p.a and pay them compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and damages of Rs.1,00,000/- with costs of the litigation.

 2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

Influenced by paper advertisement given by the OPs regarding formation of residential layout called as ‘European Township’ in land survey No.39, new survey No.185 situated at Hirandanahalli, Bidarhalli Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, the complainants decided to buy one of the sites in the said layout.  OP-2 is a developer of the said residential layout and the sites are being marketed by OP-1.  OP-2 is owner and in possession of the entire land where the residential layout has been formed.  On the above representation made by both the OPs, the complainants booked a site bearing No.62 measuring 4000 square feet (each) formed in the said layout.  OP-2 executed an agreement of sale dated 04.07.2008 in favour of complainants in respect of the said site.  The total consideration agreed for the site was Rs.44,00,000/- out of which the complainants paid a sum of Rs.14,67,000/- as advance vide cheque dated 01.07.2008.  OP-2 has acknowledged the receipt of the said sum of Rs.14,67,000/-.  It was agreed by the OPs that, the OP-2 shall execute registered sale deed in favour of the complainant within 6 months from the date of execution of agreement of sale.  It was further agreed that the OP shall carry on all the developments in accordance with the specifications made out by the BDA and other competent authorities.  However, thereafter the OPs without any reasonable explanation started deferring the execution of the sale deed on one or the other pretext and ultimately failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainants.  Apart from the complainants several others had also booked sites in the said layout and some of the persons so booked the sites lodged criminal complaints against the accused for having committed fraud on them.

OPs thereafter promised to refund the advance amount to the complainants by requesting them not to initiate any proceedings against them and believing their words the complainants did not initiate any proceedings against the OPs.  However, when the OPs failed to refund the amount as promised by them they were constrained to file this complaint for deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.  Apart from the complainant several other persons who had booked sites in the said layout have filed similar complaint against the OPs.

For the above said reasons, the complainants pray for an order directing the OPs to refund jointly and severally the advance amount of Rs.14,67,000/- together with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of payment till the date of realization, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency of service and Rs.1,00,000/- as damages together with cost of the litigation.

3. The notice of the complaint issued to the OPs returned unserved as both of them had vacated their office.  Therefore notice of the complaint were published in the local newspaper and despite publication of notice, both the OPs failed to appear and were placed ex-parte.

4. Thereafter the complainants were called upon to file their affidavit evidence.  Accordingly complainant No.1, on behalf of his wife complainant No.2, filed his affidavit evidence reiterating the allegations made in the complaint.  The complainant also produced the copy of the brochures published by the OPs regarding above mentioned residential layout.  They have also produced the copy of agreement of sale executed by the OP-2, cheque receipt dated 03.07.2008 and copy of FIR lodged against OPs and other documents.

5. The allegations made in the complaint coupled with the copy of the agreement of sale, cheque receipt etc., goes to establish that the OP-2 executed an agreement of sale in favour of the complainants in respect of site bearing No.62 in residential layout called as ‘European Township’ situated at Hirandanahalli, Bidarhalli Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk measuring 4000 square feet.  On the date of execution of the sale deed the OPs have received advance amount of Rs.14,67,000/- out of the total consideration amount of Rs.44,00,000/-.  It has been agreed by the OPs to execute a registered sale deed in respect of the said site within 6 months from the date of agreement of sale.  However, it is apparent from the allegations made in the complaint, the OPs have failed to execute registered sale deed in favour of the complainants by receiving the balance consideration amount within the agreed period or within a reasonable time thereafter.  Despite repeated requests, the OPs have neither executed a registered sale deed in favour of the complainants nor refunded the advance amount received by them.  Though the OPs at one point promised to refund the advance amount but failed to do so.  This conduct of OPs amounts to grave deficiency in service on their part.

6. The OPs apart from the complainants committed fraud on several other individuals who have booked sites in the said layout, for which some of them have lodged criminal complaints and some of them have filed similar complaints in various Forums in Bangalore.  It is not in dispute that, OP-1 was marketing the sites developed by the OP-2.  Both the OPs are jointly and severally responsible for not having executed the registered sale deed in favour of the complainants.  Therefore, the OPs together have to be directed to refund the advance amount of Rs.14,67,000/- to the complainant together with interest @ 12% p.a.  The conduct of the OPs in not executing the registered sale deed in favour of the complainant and in not refunding advance amount must have caused great hardship, inconvenience and mental agony to the complainants.  Therefore, the OPs have to be directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant for the same.

7. The order could not be passed within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency.

8. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainants U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is allowed in part.  OPs.1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to refund a sum of Rs.14,67,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand only) to the complainants together with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of receipt till the date of realization.  Further OPs.1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainants for deficiency of service resulting in great hardship, inconvenience and mental agony to the complainants together with litigation cost of Rs.4,000/-.

OP shall comply the said order within six weeks from the date of communication of this order.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 31^st day of May 2016)

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 01.07.2015.

1. Sri.J. Sambasiva Rao.

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite parties- Nil

 Document produced by the Opposite parties - Nil

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln*