COMPLAINT FILED: 26.02.2009 <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 11th AUGUST 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.482/2009<br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Shri Shiva Sharanappa<br /> Silvant Alandkar,<br /> S/o Rachoteppa,<br /> Aged about 60 years,<br /> At Shop No.4-50,<br /> Saraff Bazaar,<br /> Gulbarga.<br /> <br /> Advocate: Sri S.R.Muralidhar<br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY M/s Sivajyothi Township<br /> Promoters Pvt. Ltd.,<br /> Rptd: by its MD: Shri Nandyala<br /> Hanumantha Reddy Gari Bhaskar Reddy,<br /> S/o N.H.P. Shiva Reddy,<br /> Having Their Regd. Office,<br /> At: No.C-17, 2nd Block,<br /> Kudremukh Colony, <br /> Near St John’s Hospital,<br /> Sarjapur Road,<br /> Koramangala,<br /> Bangalore – 560 034.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund Rs.1,10,000/- with damages and pay a compensation on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under.<br /> <br /> 3. Complainant being lured away with the advertisement and publicity issued by the OP who claims to be the promoters, developers of residential lay outs consisting of sites of various dimensions thought of becoming the member of the scheme floated by the OP in the name and style of ‘Shivajyothi Township’. OP accepted the membership and allotted him registration No.2048. Complainant opted to purchase a site measuring 30’ X 40’ and made payment of Rs.1,10,000/- between 25.08.1998 to 15.08.2004. Though complainant paid the entire sital value, OP failed to complete the project and allot a site inspite of repeated requests and demands made. The complainant felt that OP has cheated him. Hence he sought for refund of the money paid. It went in vain. Then he caused legal notice, there was no response. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under such circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 4. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were issued to the OP. Though the OP is duly served with a notice, remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. The absence of the OP does not appears to be as bonafide and reasonable, hence OP is placed ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 5. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP did not participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 6. It is the case of the complainant that he being lured away with advertisement and publicity issued by the OP who claims to be the promoter, developer of the residential lay out in around Bangalore, under the project Shivajyothi Thownship thought of purchasing a site measuring 30’ X 40’ in the project floated by the OP. In that regard he filed a application. His membership was accepted and he was given registration No.2048. Complainant made payment of Rs.1,10,000/- in a monthly installment of Rs.1,500/- from 25.08.1998 to 15.08.2004. <br /> <br /> 7. Complainant has produced the broucher as well as the receipts passed by the OP. Even after lapse of 4 years. OP did not complete the project and allot and register the site in favour of the complainant. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant went in futile. Being fed up with the hostile attitude of the OP, complainant even sought for the refund of the money and caused a legal notice copy of the legal notice is also produced, again there is no response.<br /> <br /> 8. The evidence of the complainant finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents. It appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. The non appearance of the OP even after the due service of the notice leads us to draw an inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant. Though complainant invested his hard earned money, he is unable reap the fruits of his investment, it is all because of the hostile attitude of the OP. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 9. OP having retained the said huge amount accrued the wrongful gain, thereby caused wrongful loss to the complainant that too at no fault of his. We are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove both the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under such circumstances he is entitled for certain relief. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. Op is directed to refund Rs.1,10,000/- with 12% interest p.a. from 16.08.2004 till realization and pay a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. <br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication. <br /> <br /> (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 11th day of August 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Snm:<br /> <br /> <br />