17.06.2023

ORDER ON ADMISSION

Mr. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The appellant/Opposite Party has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.05.01.2023 passed in CC.No.5/2022 on the file of Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore which directed this appellant to allot the site to the complainant by receiving balance sale consideration amount within three months with compensation and costs.  In default, an amount of Rs.1,96,800/- paid by the complainant shall carry interest at 10% p.a. after expiry of three months, till allotment of site.

2.      The appellant submits that the respondent/complainant applied for a site measuring 30x40 feet which is proposed to be developed by the appellant/Opposite Party in layout known as “Athmananda Sagara Layout”, and paid amount of Rs.1,96,800/-.  The respondent had not paid the entire consideration amount towards allotment and registration of the Sale Deed in favour of the respondent.  Inspite of that the respondent approached the District Commission alleging deficiency in service and sought for allotment of the site and registration of the Sale Deed in their favour.  After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to allot the site to the complainant by receiving balance sale consideration amount within three months with compensation and costs.  In default, an amount of Rs.1,96,800/- paid by the complainant shall carry interest at 10% p.a. after expiry of three months, till allotment of site.  Infact they are ready to register the Sale Deed in favour of the respondent and the same defence was taken before the District Commission.  The District Commission considering the defence taken by this appellant had allowed the complaint and directed this appellant to pay the above compensation which is not in accordance with Consumer Protection Act.  The appellant is still ready to register the Sale Deed if the respondent had paid the balance amount towards sale consideration. The District Commission without any reasons awarded interest on the said amount and also directed to refund the amount with huge compensation.  Hence, prayed to set aside the Order passed by the District Commission in the interest of justice and equity.

3.      Heard advocate appellant on admission

4.      On perusal of the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the order and documents produced before the District Commission, it is an admitted fact that the respondent had paid an amount of Rs.1,96,800/- for allotment of site measuring 30x60 in “ Athmananda Sagara Layout” in the year 2007-08, but, the appellant had not developed the layout to allot the site in favour of the respondent.  We noticed that there is already 15 years over for development of the layout.  The respondent having no option has filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service and sought allotment of the site.

5.      Further, the learned counsel for appellant submits that they are ready to allot the site in favour of the respondent subject to payment of the balance sale consideration amount towards the site.  The District Commission after trial rightly allowed the complaint and directed this appellant to allot the site.  The Order passed by the District Commission is justifiable.  The learned counsel for appellant at the time of admission had submitted that they are ready to allot the site, but, mere submission is not sufficient to hold that they are ready to allot the site.  When there is an undertaking by this appellant to allot the site, the question of challenging the Order passed by the District Commission does not arise.  The appellant before the District Commission had filed version undertaken to allot the site on the basis of senioritiy of the members, but, even as per the version also, they not came forward to allot the site in favour of the respondent.  We noticed that no documents were placed before this Commission to show that the land was fully developed and sites are ready for registration, as such, the submission made by the appellant is not acceptable.  The appellant had not shown any valid reasons for not developing the allotment as undertaken.  Hence, it is a clear case of deficiency in service.  The Order passed by the District Commission is in accordance with Law which does not require any interference.  Hence, the following;

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.

Forward free copies to both parties.

               Sd/-                                            Sd/-

(Sunita .C. Bagewadi)                        (Ravishankar)        

         Member                                   Judicial Member

KCS*