17.06.2023

ORDER ON ADMISSION

Mr. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The appellant/Opposite Party has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.18.03.2023 passed in CC.No.5/2021 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chickmagalur which directed this appellant to register the Sale Deed in favour of the respondent measuring 60x40 feet as per the letter dt.10.02.2013 and also directed this appellant to pay interest on the advance amount paid by the complainant at 8% along with Rs.50,000/- compensation and Rs.10,000/- as costs.

2.      The appellant submits that the respondent/complainant applied for a site measuring 60x40 feet which is proposed to be developed by the appellant/Opposite Party in the land situated at Belavadi Village, Mysore in layout known as “Brhamananda Sagara”, Phase-2 and paid amount of Rs.2,56,800/-.  The value of the site is Rs.12,60,000/-.  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 registration of the Sale Deed in their favour.  After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to refund the advance amount paid by the respondent with interest along with compensation and costs.  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, we noticed that the District Commission has directed this appellant to execute the Sale Deed in favour of respondent by accepting the balance sale consideration amount as per letter dt.10.02.2013 towards the site measuring 60x40 feet in “Brhamananda Sagara”, Mysore and also directed this appellant to pay interest at 8% on the advance amount paid by the respondent to a sum of Rs.2,56,800/-.  Whereas in the memorandum of appeal, the appellant had wrongfully mentioned that the District Commission had directed this appellant to pay Rs.5,00,000/- compensation.  There is no such Order passed by the District Commission.  Further, we noticed that the District Commission has directed this appellant to pay interest at 8% p.a. on the amount paid by the respondent/ complainant and not refunding the amount whereas the appellant has wrongfully interpreted the Order and stated in the memorandum of appeal that the District Commission has wrongfully directed this appellant to refund the amount.

5.      Further, the learned counsel for appellant submits that they are ready to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the complainant subject to payment of the balance sale consideration amount towards the site.  The District Commission also directed this appellant to execute the Sale Deed.  When there is an undertaking by this appellant, the question of challenging the Order passed by the District Commission does not arise.  Further, we noticed that this appellant inspite of sufficient time taken for allotment of site and to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the respondent.  The respondent constrained to file a complaint for a direction against this appellant to execute the Sale Deed.  Therefore, the District Commission has awarded 8% interest on the advance amount paid by the respondent for the delayed process.  The Order awarded by the District Commission is justifiable.  We found there are no valid reasons averred in the memorandum appeal for delay in executing the Sale Deed.  The appellant before the District Commission had filed version undertaken to execute the Sale Deed in one or two months, but, even as per the version of the appellant, the appellant has not came forward to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the respondent.  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*