BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BELLARY

C.C.No.09 of 2015

Present:

(1)  Smt C.M.Chanchala,

B.A.L, LL.B.              …….  President.

(2)   Shri. R.Bandachar,

B.Com, LL.B.  (Spl) ……  Member.

(3)  Smt Mary Havila,

B.A.                       ……       Member

DATED THIS THE 17^th DAY OF JULY 2015.

// O R D E R //

Per Smt.C.M.Chanchala.

The complainant filed the complaint against the respondents U/Sec-12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2.  The brief facts of the case are that the respondents launched a real estate business in Bellary city under the name and style of Sri Shiva Sai Developers Bhargava Megha Enclave and through advertisement in the news paper they offered the public to become members of their scheme.  They also attracted the public through pamphlets showing the location of the plot proposed to be developed on Bellary-Hospet road, Opp: Bellary Engineering college, Bellary measuring 1200 sq. ft, for total cost of Rs.72,000/- and the respondents had also given an offer price for the plot No.225 who pay the price at one time payment for this plot they will get 10% discount on the price fixed.  The respondents further assured that the purchaser can get register the plot soon after facilitate the amenities  and after get required permission from the concerned authority and also assured that the project would be completed within year 2013 with all amenities and after get approval from BUDA they execute regular registered sale deed in favour of the purchaser.  Believing the version of the respondents with an intention  to purchase Plot no.225 the complainant entered into an agreement with the respondents on 02.05.2007 and paid advance amount of Rs.10,000/- for which the respondents issued the receipt vide No.858.  Whenever the complainant approached the respondents in their Bellary office they were always absent in the office.  Later the complainant found that no layout is formed as assured by the respondents as per their advertisement in the locality. The respondents failed to complete the scheme and register the sale deed in favour of the complainant.  The act of the respondents amounts to deficiency in service.  Therefore, the complainant seeking the reliefs as prayed for.

3.  In spite of service of the notice, the respondents failed to appear and are placed exparte.

4.  The complainant to prove his case, as his evidence, filed his affidavit, which is marked as P.W.1 and got marked 01 document as Ex.P.1.

5. Heard the arguments on complainant’s side.

6.  The points that arise for our consideration are;

7.  The findings on the above points are as under.

// R  E A S O N S //

Point No.1 : -

8.   The respondents did not appear and challenged the case of the complainant and hence, they placed exparte.

9.  The contention of the complainant is that he had paid Rs.10,000/- as advance amount to purchase the plot No.225 which is an offered price.  To prove his case, the complainant produced one document marked as Ex.P.1 which disclosed that the complainant has paid Rs.10,000/- as advance amount on 02-05-2007 pertaining to the plot No.225.  In this regard, the respondents have also issued a receipt vide No.858 on 02-05-2007 for having received the said amount. It shows that the transaction carried out between the complainant and the respondents. The complainant said that the respondents failed to execute the sale deed in his favour, as per the conditions and they were not formed any layout as per their advisement.

10. When the respondents are dealing with the public/consumers honesty should take the place of pride and not otherwise.  But the facts and the figures produced before us shows that the respondents are trying swindle the consumers’ hard earned money.  The act of the respondents amounts to misappropriation and cheating for which the respondents are criminally liable.  All these aspects amount to deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

11.  Even the cause of action arose on 02-05-2007, as per the citation of Hon’ble National Commission reported in IV (2012) CPJ 36 (NC) (Raghava Estates Ltd. Vs. Vishnupuram Colony Welfare Association & another) there is continuing cause of action pertaining to the immoveable properties.  For the reasons discussed above, this point is answered in the affirmative.

Point No.2 :-

12.  As the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, he is entitled for refund of Rs.10,000/-  paid as advance amount and compensation towards deficiency in service and awarding of Rs.5,000/- towards the same will meet ends of justice.  Besides this, the complainant is entitled to get interest @ 9% p.a. from 02.05.2007 on advance amount of Rs.10,000/ till realization as well as cost of the proceedings, which shall be as per final order. Accordingly, this point is answered partly in the affirmative.

Point No.3 : -

13.   In view of the discussions made under Point No.1 and 2, we pass the following;

// ORDER //

The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.

The complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.10,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from 02.05.2007 till realization of the said amount.

The complainant is entitled to get Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service.

The complainant is also entitled to recover Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings, from the respondents.

The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said amounts to the complainant within two months from the date of this order.

Inform the parties accordingly.

rk