Sr    Sri M.C.DEVAKUMAR,

M    Member

1.       The Complainant has filed the complaint Under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the Raj Abhijna Property Developers Pvt Ltd opposite party company alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and   seeking a direction to opposite party to show the proposed area of their “Manya Enclave” and also to allot a site measuring 30 x 40 feet by accepting the sale price as per the sale agreement or in the alternative to pay interest at 18% p.a. from the respective date of payment, till the date of payment and also to pay compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- for causing mental agony, cheating etc.

2.     The complainant agreed to purchase a residential site, measuring 30 x 40 feet, from the opposite party, private  limited company, doing real estate business, in and around Mysore city. The complainant agreed to buy a residential site in their proposed “Manya Enclave” at Madagalli Village, Yelwala Hobli, Mysore Taluk, got enrolled by paying  booking charges of Rs. 2,500/- on 19.01.2015 and obtained the personal ID No. as 204.

3.      Payment of Rs. 60,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- made to opposite party through two cheques, bearing nos. 061867 dated 22.01.2015 and 061871 dated 15.04.2015 respectively, towards purchase value of the site. A sale agreement was entered into with opposite party on 28.10.2015 towards purchase of the site.

4.     The complainant, further made three payments, i.e., Rs.2,02,016/- Rs.2,02,088/-  and Rs. 2,02,088/- through three cheques bearing nos.061879 dated 29.10.2015, 013427 dated 02.05.2016 and 013436 dated 30.01.2017,  in all paid a total  consideration of Rs. 8,66,192/- to opposite party towards sital value.

5.     After payment of substantial amount, the complainant repeatedly demand the opposite party to show the exact location of the “Manya Enclave”. Or else he would take legal action to safe guard his money. To the surprise, on 19.03.2019 the complainant received a sum of Rs. 8,59,928/- by way of RTGS to the credit of his account from  opposite party. In protest, a legal notice was issued on 21.03.2019, calling upon the opposite party to allot a residential site as per the agreement. The unilateral and illegal act of opposite party has been alleged as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Having suffered mentally, the complainant has filed this complaint seeking reliefs.

6.     The opposite party represented through its counsel, has filed its version and submits that, the complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed in limine, on the ground that, the complainant has not made the Board of Directors as party to the complaint and flatly denied the averments and the allegations in the complaint.

7.     The opposite party further submitted that, it is a registered company, registered under the companies Act,1956. They have initiated marketing of sites to be formed and called as “MANYA ENCLAVE’’. As the complainant has shown interest in purchase of a site, after due deliberations, it was agreed to receive the amount in installments and to get execute the registered sale deed by next four years from the date of execution of the agreement. An agreement was entered in to on 28.10.2015 and the complainant has paid the amount in installments. However, the payment was irregular. The complainant has expressed his inability to pay further installments and proposed to cancel the agreement, seeking refund of the entire amount. Accordingly, the entire installment amount paid by the complainant was transferred to complainants bank account . Thereby complainant is bound to return the original agreement, duly affixing his signature on the vouchers for having received the amount. Still the complainant, can purchase the site by repayment of the amount. But the complainant failed to turn up. Instead filed the complaint with frivolous allegations. The complaint is filed with ulterior motive and to defame the opposite party. Hence the allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice is denied as false and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

8.     To establish the facts, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence, along with fifteen documents. The opposite party also filed its affidavit evidence. Complainant counsel has filed written arguments and made oral submissions. The opposite party neither filed the written arguments nor addressed the oral arguments.

9.     On perusal of the evidence and the material documents and upon hearing the oral submissions of the learned counsel for complainant, the matter posted for order.

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

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?

2. Whether the complainant establishes the payment of amount to opposite party firm towards purchase of site in their “Manya Enclave”?

3. Whether the complainant establishes the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by opposite party and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs?

4 .What order?

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

Point No.1:- In the affirmative

Point No.2:- In the affirmative

Point No.3:- In the negative

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

:: R E A S O N S ::

12. Point No.1:- The complainant has paid part payment towards purchase of the site measuring 30 x40 feet to be formed in layout called as “Manya Enclave” and also agreed to pay the balance sale consideration to opposite party thereby the complainant is a consumer Under Section 2(1) (d) of CP Act 1986. Hence point no.1 is answered in the affirmative.

13. Point No.2:- The complainant has produced five (05) receipts issued by the opposite party acknowledging the receipt of the amount towards purchase of site on various dates, apart from membership form dated 19.01.2015, enrollment letter dated 15.04.2015, sale agreement dated 28.10.2015 and the demand letter for payment of 1^st,4^th and 5^th installments, which proved that the complainant has paid the part of the purchase value of the site to opposite party. Hence, point no.2 is answered in the affirmative.

14.  Point no.3:- It is true that the complainant has entered into a sale agreement on 28.10.2015 and paid total sum of Rs. 8,66,192/- to the opposite party from 22.01.2015 to 30.01.2017 towards purchase of the site, measuring 30 x40  feet, to be developed by opposite party in the name and style as “Manya Enclave” at Madaglli village, Yelwala Hobli, Mysuru Taluk. However on repeated demands by the complainant to show the exact location of the property, the opposite party neglected to furnish the particulars and also to show the land where the “Manya Enclave” was going to come up. As such, called for refund of the amount paid by him. The opposite party refunded Rs. 8,59,928/- on 19.03.2019 through RTGS without payment of interest.

15.      As per the agreement dated 28.10.2015, the sale value of the site was fixed at Rs. 15,00,000/-. However the complainant has paid part of the sale consideration only. Since the complainant has not paid the balance consideration until to provide information regarding development of sites. The opposite party has unilaterally decided to refund the amount paid by the complainant and refunded Rs. 8,59,928/- on 19.03.2019 through RTGS.

16.      Thereby the complainant has failed to prove the allegation of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by opposite party. As such the commission is of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs sought. Accordingly point no.3 is answered in the negative.

17.   Point no.4:- In view of the above observations, the complaint filed by Sri Annegowda deserved to be dismissed. Hence the following:

:: ORDER ::

1. The complaint is dismissed
2. Furnish the copy of order to the complainant at free of cost.