17.06.2023

ORDER ON ADMISSION

Mr. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The appellant/Opposite Party has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.27.07.2022 passed in CC.No.399/ 2021 on the file of Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore which directed this appellant to refund the amount paid by the complainant with interest at 9% p.a. along with compensation and costs.

2.      The appellant submits that the respondent/complainant had applied for allotment of site measuring 30x40 in the Ayushman Bhavan Layout developed by this appellant and paid Rs.4,81,020/- and also alleged that inspite of undertaking for allotment of the site within 2-3 years, this appellant had not allotted a site and registered in favour of the complainant instead of completion of nine years for development.  The Opposite Party had not developed the layout till 2020 and had not found any progress and finally the respondent issued a legal notice and demanded for refund of the amount paid for allotment of the site.  Subsequently, the respondent/complainant initiated a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/Opposite Party sought for refund of the amount paid.  After trial, the District Commission directed this appellant to pay Rs.4,81,000/- within 60 days.  Infact, the Order passed by the District Commission is against to the rules and regulations.  The District Commission had not provided a fair opportunity to file version in order to contend the allegations made by the respondent/ complainant and proceeded to take evidence and passed the Order without any valid reasons.  Infact the complainant had made a last payment in the year 2012 and he had not approached the Commission within two years from the date of last payment.  The complaint is belatedly filed.  Further the respondent has not paid the balance consideration of Rs.70,92,000/-.  There is a default on the side of the respondent himself and there is no any agreement to pay any interest on the amount paid by the respondent.  Inspite of that the District Commission directed this appellant to pay interest at 9% on the amount paid by the respondent.  Further, the complaint not falls within the definition of the Consumer Protection Act inspite of that the District Commission allowed the complaint.  Infact the appellant is ready to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the respondent and the same defence taken before the District Commission.  The respondent/complainant has not come up with clear hands and they are not liable to pay any amount as directed by the District Commission, hence, prayed to set aside the order passed by the District Commission.

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.4,81,020/- for allotment of site measuring 30x40 in “Ayushman Bhavan Layout” in the year 2011-12, but, the appellant had not developed the layout and not provided an opportunity for registration of the Sale Deed in favour of the respondent.  We noticed that there is already nine years over for development of the layout.  The respondent had issued a legal notice on 04.02.2021 and called upon the appellant for progress of the layout, but, this appellant had not replied to the said legal notice.  The respondent have no option has filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service and sought refund of the entire amount paid towards the allotment of site along with interest at 18% p.a.

5.      The District Commission after trial has rightly allowed the complaint and directed this appellant to refund the amount paid by the respondent with interest.  The Order passed the by the District Commission is justifiable.  The learned counsel for appellant at the time of admission had submitted that they are ready to execute the Sale Deed, but, mere submission is not sufficient to hold that they are ready to execute the Sale Deed.  We noticed 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.  It is a clear case of deficiency in service and they are liable to pay the award amount as per Order of the District Commission.  We found no valid merits in the appeal.  Hence, the following;

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.

Forward free copies to both parties.

             Sd/-                                                  Sd/-

(Sunita .C. Bagewadi)                        (Ravishankar)        

         Member                                   Judicial Member

KCS*