Karnataka

Dharwad

CC/4/2015

Venkatesh Shridhar Pai - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shreya Developers - Opp.Party(s)

S.P.Patil

27 Mar 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM;  DHARWAD.

                               

DATE: 27^th March 2015       

 

PRESENT:

1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha       : President

2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi             : Member

3) Shri.M.Lokesh          : Member

 

 

 Complaint No.: 4/2015

 

 

 

1.     Venkatesh s/o.Shridhar Pai,

Age: 41 years, Occ: Private Service, R/o. H.No.15/1, Monisha Mansion, Tent Road, III Cross, Sanjeevininagar, Mudalpalya, Bangalore – 72.                  

2.     Smt.Jayalakshmi w/o. Venkatesh Pai,

Age: 36 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.15/1, Monisha Mansion, Tent Road, III Cross, Sanjeevininagar, Mudalpalya, Bangalore – 72.

 

The complainants have appointed Sri. Shridhar s/o.Narayan Pai as the SPA  holder who has signed the complaint on their behalf. 

 …in CC/4/2015

 

(By Sri.S.P.Patil, Adv.)

 

v/s

 

Respondent/s:         1.     Shreya Developers. A registered   

Partnership firm having its registered office at #2^nd floor, Belamkar Center, Club Road, Hubli 580029.

 

2.     Shreya Developers, R/by its Partner, Sri.Ramesh s/o.Yalgurdrao Joshi, R/o.Sanman Colony, Behind New Bus Stand, Hubli 580024.

 

3.     Shreya Developers, R/by its Partner, Smt.Jyoti w/o.Ramesh Joshi, R/o.Sanman Colony, Behind New Bus Stand, Hubli 580024.

 

(Exparte)

 

O R D E R

 

By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.

 

1.     Since the complaints filed by the complainants against the same respondents and as the reliefs sought are the common, for the convenience all the complaints were clubbed together and disposed in a common judgment.

2.     The complainants have filed these complaints claiming for a direction to the respondents to execute the registered sale deed in respect of the plots they have booked with clear marketable title, free from litigation and encumbrances, in the event of failure to execute the sale deed direct to refund the amount paid with interest from the date of agreement till realization, to order for pay Rs.2 lakhs towards compensation for mental agony, Rs.5 lakhs by way of special damages towards the escalation in construction cost and to grant such other reliefs.

 

Brief facts of the case are as under:

3.     The case of the complainant is that, the complainants in order to have their own plots approached the respondent.1 developer. The respondent.2 and 3 are the partners of the respondent.1 developers. Accordingly on the assurance of the respondents the complainants entered into sale and purchase of the plots and paid Rs.290/- per sq.ft., under receipt as per the table shown below.

Sl.No.	CC No.	Plot No.	Dt of agreement	payment cheque no.	Amt.	Name of the drawee bank
	2/15	24	10.05.10	391956   391955	209520   465600	Syndicate Bank Bangalore Syndicate Bank B’lore
	3/15	155	10.05.10	607466   607465	133860   232800	Syndicate Bank Bangalore Syndicate Bank B’lore
	4/15	25	10.05.10	391952   666277	275120   400000	Syndicate Bank Bangalore ICICI Bank B’lore

 

4.     As per the agreement the respondent ought to have develop the lands in R.S.256/1, 248, 264/1, 265/1 situated at Gamanagatti village, Hubli taluk & handover the possession of the plots. The respondents tactfully to suit their desire drafted & executed the agreement. Though the time has been elapsed the respondent neither developed nor executed the sale deed in favour of the complainants despite repeated approaches and demands made by the complainants. For the payment of the consideration the respondents have passed the receipts, except execution of the agreement no response from the respondent with regard to execution of the sale deed. With the hopes the respondent will develop & had over the possession the complainants all along waited, but no useful purpose have been served. As a last resort the complainants got issued legal notice to the respondents on 10.10.2014 by RPAD calling upon the respondents to comply in accordance with the agreement. The notice sent delivered to the respondents on 17.10.2014. Despite service of notice no reply nor compliance from the respondents side, it amounts to deficiency in service. At the instance of respondents the complainants apart from loosing their hard earned money they are subjected to mental agony and deprived of owning their plots. Due to non performance the construction cost of the plot has been escalated almost 4 times. Hence, the complainants approached this Forum and filed the instant complaints praying for the relief as sought.

5.     Despite service of notice the respondent remained absent. Hence, by placing the respondent exparte, exparte proceedings initiated.

6.     On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:

1. Whether complainants have proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
2. Whether complainants are entitled to the relief as claimed?
3. To what relief the complainants are entitled ?

 

Complainants filed sworn to evidence affidavit, relied on documents.  Heard. Perused the records.

Finding on points is as under.

1. Affirmatively   
2. Accordingly  
3.  As per order

 

Reasons

Points 1 and 2

7.     On going through the pleadings & evidence coupled with documents of complainant it is evident that there is no dispute with regard to the fact, that the complainant with intent to purchase the plots have paid the amount as per Ex C2 (a) & (b)  towards the advance and part sale consideration of their respective plots.   

8.     Now the question to be determined is, whether non execution of sale deed and non delivering the possession of plots amounts to deficiency in service, if so, for what relief the complainants are entitled.

9.     Since the respondent remained absent and prosecution has been taken place in exparte proceedings the contention of complainants stood unimpeached.  Perusal of Ex.C2 (a) & (b) disclose that the complainants have paid the consideration and in turn the respondents have accepted the same and confirmed the transactions. The grievance of the complainant is that, as agreed the respondents did not execute sale deed and hand over the possession. Certainly this amounts to a deficiency in service  Hence, the complainant with cogent and appulsive evidence have  established their case of deficiency in service against the respondents. Hence, complainants are entitled for the relief.

10    In view of the above discussions we have arrived and proceed to held issue.1 in affirmatively and 2 accordingly.

11.   Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following 

Order

        The complaints are partly allowed. The respondents jointly and severally are directed to execute sale deed and deliver the possession of the plots to the complainant within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order along with Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings. If the complainant failed to execute sale deed and deliver the possession the respondents shall refund the amount received by the complainants under the receipts  with interest @12% from the date of receipt of the said amount till realization. Failure to comply the orders the respondents shall pay Rs.50/- per each day of default  in addition to the award amount.

(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 27^th day of March 2015)

 

 

 

 

(Shri.M.Lokesh)                   (Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi)                            (Shri.B.H.Shreeharsha)

Member                                 Member                                                 President

Dist.Consumer Forum            Dist.Consumer Forum                        Dist.Consumer Forum

MSR