COMPLAINTS FILED ON:13.03.2012
DISPOSED ON:24.05.2012.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
24th DAY OF MAY-2012
PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SRI. GANGANARSAIAH MEMBER
COMPLAINT Nos.515/2012
Complainant | Narayan G.Bapat S/o Late G.N.Bapat, Aged about 51 yearsz, Residing at No.13, First Floor, Kalappa Block, Basavanagudi, Bangalore-560 004. Adv:Sri.Mallinath S.Maka V/s |
OPPOSITE PARTY | Manjunath Reddy, Proprietor, M/s Vintage Shelters, Having it’s Main Office at No.14, 1st Floor, Opposite Agara Lake, 14th Main, HSR Layout, Sector 5, Bangalore-560 034. And Also At: Having it’s Branch Office at No.118, 3rd Floor, Pamadi Chambers, D.V.Gundappa Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore-560 004. Residing at No.G-4, ‘Vintage Paradise’, No.66/67, 4th Cross, Hosapalya, Bommanahalli, Bangalore-560 068. Placed Ex-parte. |
O R D E R
SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT
The complainant filed this complaint Under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- paid towards advance sale consideration along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and conveyance charges of Rs.5,000/- on the allegations of deficiency in service.
2. Though in the cause title, it is shown that OP1 to 3 are parties but in fact there is only one OP, the addresses furnished are three regarding the main office, branch office and residential address.
3. In spite of service of notice, Op failed to appear without any justifiable cause, hence placed ex-parte.
4. In order to substantiate complaint averments, complainant filed affidavit evidence and produced documents.
5. Arguments from complainant’s side heard.
6. We have gone through the complaint averments, the documents produced and affidavit evidence of the complainant. On the basis of these materials it becomes clear that the OP is the Proprietor of M/s Vintage Shelters, who is involved in developing and formation of layouts and other allied activities. OP approached this complainant soliciting him to buy a site formed under the name and style of ‘Vintage Residency Layout, at Manchanahalli Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District. The complainant has offered the site bearing No.41, measuring 40 X 30 feet. OP represented that the layout is an approved one and the same is perfectly in accordance with the rules and regulations, laid down by the BMRDA etc. The sale consideration for the said site was fixed at Rs.6,25,000/-. The complainant paid sum of Rs.1,00,000/- through cheque dt.13.07.2011 towards advance sale consideration. OP issued acknowledgment for having received the said amount. OP provided some documents, allegedly pertaining to the land in question, out of which the site in question was carved. Upon examination of the documents, the OP was asked to provide documents in respect of the layout regarding, sanctioned plan, BMRDA approval, NOC from BMRDA, BDA and other statutory bodies. It was also insisted that encumbrance certificates and such other documents, including the extracts in respect of the land in question and also details of the site were sought to be provided. In the acknowledgment issued by OP, undertaking was given stating that: “A set of documents pertaining to the property, including a model copy of the proposed Sale Deed has also been handed over for scrutiny. The entire advance amount i.e., Rs.1,00,000/ will be refunded, if the customer not satisfied about the legal opinion regarding the documents or if the proposed sale does not come through for any reason whatsoever”. Since Op failed to provide the required documents, the complainants was constrained to inform the OP during the month of July-2011 about his disinterest in buying the site and demanded for refund of the amount paid as initial sale consideration. Though Op initially promised to refund the amount by 15.08.201 and the date of extended to 01.09.2011. But OP failed to comply the demand, the complainant wrote a letter dt.13.09.2011, the same was returned un-served, in respect of address Nos.1 & 2 of OP, the same was served at address No.3, but OP has not replied for the said notice nor complied the demand to refund the amount.
7. It may be noted that when OP was unable to fulfill his obligations in furnishing the required documents regarding the proposed layout and also the title for executing the sale deed it would have been fair enough on his part to refund the amounts received as initial sale consideration. The very fact of OP remained ex-parte leads to draw inference that OP is admitting the claim of the complainant. There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged affidavit evidence of the complainant and documents produced. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount paid as initial sale consideration with interest at 18% p.a. by way of compensation, along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.
Op is directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 13.07.2011, till the date of realization 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.
Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 24th day of MAY-2012.)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Cs.
