Karnataka

StateCommission

CC/513/2019

Vandana Waghray - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rizwan Ulla Baig - Opp.Party(s)

G.Freddy Charles

17 Nov 2022

ORDER

KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/510/2019
( Date of Filing : 30 Oct 2019 )
 
1. Sanjay Bhatia
S/o Rajindra Paul Bhatia, Aged about 60 years, R/a Pricol Crimson Dawn, Flat No.8/4C, Nava India road, Coimbatore South, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu PIN-641004.
2. Smt.Archana Bhatia
W/o Sanjay Bhatia, Aged about 59 years, R/a Pricol Crimson Dawn, Flat No.8/4C, Nava India road, Coimbatore South, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu PIN-641004.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Rizwan Ulla Baig
S/o Rahamath Ulla Baig, M/s Aiera Builders & Developers, Aged about 41 years, Having office at: No.H21, 80 ft.road, Koramangala 5th block, Bangalore-560085
2. M.Shanthappa
S/o Late Doddamuniswamy, Aged about 50 years, R/a No.640/41, New Binny layout, 3rd cross, Magadi road, Bangalore-560023
............Opp.Party(s)
Complaint Case No. CC/511/2019
( Date of Filing : 30 Oct 2019 )
 
1. Sanjay Bhatia
S/o Rajinder Paul Bhatia, Aged about 60 years, R/a Pricol Crimson Dawn, Flat No.8/4C, Nava India road, Coimbatore South, Coimbatore, Tamilanadu. PIN-641004
Tamilnadu
2. Smt.Archana Bhatia
W/o Sanjay Bhatia, Aged about 59 years, R/a :Prical Crimson Dawn, Flat No.8/4c, Navai India road, Coimbatore south, Coimbatore
Tamilnadu
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Rizwan Ulla Baig
M/s Aiera Builders & Developers, S/o Rahamath Ulla Baig, Aged about 41 years, Having office at: H21, 80 ft.road, Koramangala 5th block, Bangalore-560085 Also at: No.640/41, New binny Layout, 3rd cross, Magadi road, Bangalore-560023
Karnataka
2. M.Shanthappa
S/o Late Doddamuniswamy, Aged about 50 years, R/a No.640/41, New Binny layout, 3rd cross, Magadi road, Bangalore-560023
Karnataka
............Opp.Party(s)
Complaint Case No. CC/512/2019
( Date of Filing : 30 Oct 2019 )
 
1. Praveen Kumar Sakhuja
S/o Late Sohanlal Sakhuja, Aged about 55 years, R/a No.1/50, 1st floor, Back side, Subhash nagar, West Delhi, Delhi-110027 Rep. by his GPA holder Sanjay Bhatia
New Delhi
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Rizwan Ulla Baig
M/s Aiera Buildres & Developers, S/o Rahamath Ulla Baig, Aged about 41 years, Having Office at: No.H21, 80 ft road, Koramangala 5th block, Bangalore-560085
Karnataka
2. M.Shantappa
S/o Late Doddamuniswamy, Aged about 50 years, R/a No.640/41, New Binny layout, 3rd cross, Magadi road, Bangalore-560023
Karnataka
............Opp.Party(s)
Complaint Case No. CC/513/2019
( Date of Filing : 30 Oct 2019 )
 
1. Vandana Waghray
W/o Yatendra Waghray, Aged about 45 years, R/a :Prical Crimson Dawn, Flat No.C8-04, Nava India road, Choimbator South, Tamilnadu PIN-641004
Tamilnadu
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Rizwan Ulla Baig
M/s Aiera Buildres & Developers, S/o Rahamath Ulla Baig, Aged about 41 years, Having Office at: No.H21, 80 ft road, Koramangala 5th block, Bangalore-560085
Karnataka
2. M.Shantappa
S/o Late Doddamuniswamy, Aged about 50 years, R/a No.640/41 New Binny layout, 3rd cross, Magadi road, Bangalore-560023
Karnataka
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Huluvadi G. Ramesh PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar JUDICIAL MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 17 Nov 2022
Final Order / Judgement

Dated:17.11.2022

COMMON ORDER

BY Mrs. M.DIVYASHREE : LADY MEMBER

  1. These are the complaints filed under Section 17 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with a prayer to direct OPs to deliver the Original Absolute Sale Deed and to complete all the pending works in the Schedule “C” property as per the Agreement and to handover the keys of Schedule “C” after getting all the necessary clearance from all Authorities or in the alternative to direct OPs to refund the entire Sale Consideration amount received by the respective complainant.  Further prayed to direct OPs to pay interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of Agreement of Sale for sale consideration amount and sought compensation for harassment and mental agony along with cost of the proceedings and such other reliefs as the Commission deems fit.

 

  1. These complaints are received on 30.10.2019 through advocate, came to be admitted and ordered notice against OPs in the ordinary course, since notice to OP1 is returned unclaimed and notice to OP2 is served, remained absent.  Hence held sufficient service and placed exparte.

 

  1. Complainants in order to prove their cases filed affidavit evidence and documents, after closure of enquiry heard learned counsel for complainants on complaint and on going through the documents produced by the respective complainants,  Commission to decide on the alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

 

  1. Respective complainants in their complaints stated that with an intention to purchase flats under the project floated under the name and style “AAIERA PELICAN”, had paid some consideration amount towards purchase of flats in the said project and had entered into Agreement to Sell with OPs.  The said Agreement to Sell was fructified into an “Absolute Sale Deed” on 20.03.2018 between respective complainants and OPs by receiving entire Sale Consideration amount which is duly registered before the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar Office. The complainants in their affidavit evidence and in written arguments submit that the original absolute Sale Deed is already in the possession of the respective complainants. The main allegation of the complainants are that even after receiving the entire Sale Consideration, OPs have failed to complete the construction of the property and deliver the possession to the respective complainants as per agreement. To prove their case have produced true copy of Agreement to Sell, Absolute Sale Deed, Legal notice, Postal Receipts and acknowledgments.  Thus these documents are sufficient to hold that the entire Sale consideration amount was paid by respective complainants.  The OPs having been served notice of these complaints, failed to rebut these documents on record.  In other words, OPs failed to participate in the proceedings.  In such circumstances, on ascertaining the contents of complaints, affidavit evidence and documents, written arguments filed by respective complainants, are sufficient to hold that action of OPs amounts to deficiency in service.  It is the bounden duty of the OPs to handover the possession of the flats to the respective complainants after execution of the Sale Deed.

 

  1. With such conclusion, Commission proceed to allow the complaints in part and direct OPs to clear the project and handover the possession of flats registered under Sale Deed within 03 months.  Further direct OPs to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainants towards mental agony and Rs.50,000/- towards cost of litigation within 60 days.  The OPs are directed to comply the order within time stipulated failing which OPs are directed to pay interest @ 12% p.a. for the entire Sale Consideration amount received by respective complainants from the date of Sale Deed till realization.

 

  1. Furnish free copy of this order to both parties.

 

 

 

  Lady Member          Judicial Member              President

*GGH* 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Huluvadi G. Ramesh]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar]
JUDICIAL MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.