COMPLAINT FILED: 29.11.2010
DISPOSED ON: 18.03.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
18TH MARCH 2011
PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER
SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO. 2693/2010
Complainant | Mr. Rajanna. T S/o Thammaiah, R/at. No.78, 2nd Main, 2nd Cross, Pipeline, Vijayanagar, 2nd Stage, Bangalore-40 Advocate : Srikanth M. V/s. |
OPPOSITE PARTY | Raja Consultancy Services Represented by its Proprietor Sri.B.S.Budha Raj, No.16 “Raj Residency” OTC Road, Nagarthpet, Bangalore-560 002. ALSO AT: No.597, 14th Main, BSK 1st Stage, Hanumantha Nagar, Bangalore-560 019. Exparte |
O R D E R
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER
This is a complaint filed u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- paid towards booking of the sites with interest at 24% p.a., damages of Rs.10,000/- and cost on the allegations of deficiency in service.
2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows:
OP being the absolute owner of the property bearing survey No.24/1, 24/3 and 24/5 situated at Channenahalli Village, Tavarekare Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore started developing the said land for formation of the layout namely “Gautham residential sites”. In the year 2008 OP invited applications for purchasing residential sites from the public. Lured away with the offer made by the OP complainant on 02.02.2008 made advance payment of Rs.2 lakhs by way of cash to OP and booked two sites bearing No.432 and 435 each measuring 30 X 40 fts. for a total consideration of Rs.3,75,000/-. Situated in the above layout OP has issued the receipt acknowledging the same. OP has agreed to register the two sites within a period of 3 months and to receive the balance amount of consideration. The sites developed by OP was revenue in nature. The registration of the said sites was stopped by the government. OP gave false assurance that the land is going to be get converted and immediately after conversion the site will be registered in favour of the complainant. OP failed to keep up his promise. Hence complainant lost confidence and requested OP to refund the advance amount. Inspite of repeated request OP went on postponing the same for the one or the other reason. Recently when complainant approached for refund OP replied that he is not going to refund the amount. Hence complainant caused legal notice on 19.10.2010 calling upon OP to refund the amount along with interest at 24% p.a. failing which to approach competent Court of law. The said notice returned with an endorsement intimation delivered and no such address. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service. Under these circumstances he is advised to file this complaint for the necessary reliefs.
3. On registration of the complaint notice is sent to OP. Inspite of service of notice OP remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. Hence OP is placed ex-parte.
4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced copy of layout plan, copy of the receipt, copy of the legal notice and postal acknowledgement receipt. Heard arguments of the complainant. OP did not participate in the proceedings.
5. It is the case of the complainant that he being lured away with the offer; made by the OP that he is the absolute owner of the property bearing survey No.24/1, 24/3 and 24/5 situated at Channenahalli Village, Tavarekare Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore started developing the said land for formation of the layout namely “Gautham residential sites”; made advance payment of Rs. 2 lakhs on 02.05.2008 by way of cash and booked 2 sites bearing No.432 and 435 each measuring 30 X 40 fts. for a total consideration of Rs.3,75,000/-. To substantiate this fact complainant has produced the receipt issued by OP dated 02.02.2008. Further it is contended by the complainant that OP agreed to register the above said sites within a period of 3 months and to receive the balance sale consideration. The sites developed by OP was of revenue in nature. Sine the registration of the said site was stopped by the government; OP went on giving false assurance that land is going to be converted and immediately after conversion the site will be registered in favour of the complainant. Again when complainant approached OP for refund of the advance amount OP assured the complainant that conversion work will be completed shortly and registration process well commence. But unfortunately till today OP has failed to keep up its promise. Hence complainant lost confidence in the words of OP and approached OP for refund of advance amount. OP simply went on postponing the same for the one or other reason. At last OP replied that is not going to refund the amount. There is no response to the legal notice dated 19.10.2010 issued on behalf of complainant calling upon OP to refund advance amount with interest 24%p.a. We have perused receipt issued by OP, copy of the legal notice, postal receipts and returned RPAD covers.
7. The unchallenged affidavit evidence of the complainant and the documents produced by the complainant corroborates the case of the complainant. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant. From the absence of the OP inspite of due service of notice from this Forum we can draw inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. OP having accepted such a huge amount from the complainant neither allotted and registered the sites as promised nor refunded the amount to the complainant. If OP is aware of the fact that it cannot form the layout and complete registration process it could have fairly refunded the amount to the complainant. Retention of amount illegally for more than 3 years amount to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. We are satisfied that complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service against the OP. Under the circumstances we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for refund of advance amount paid along with interest at 12% p.a. and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest at 12% p.a. from the respective date of payments till the date of refund and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.
This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 18th day of March 2011.)
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
gm.
