Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/11/1813

Sri.Ramachandra.V.Bennu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri.V.Bhaskar Reddy - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.Suresh.D.Deshpande

28 Nov 2011

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM (Principal)
8TH FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BWSSB BUILDING, BANGALORE-5600 09.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/11/1813
 
1. Sri.Ramachandra.V.Bennu
S/o Venkappa,Prashanth Nagar,Pipeline Road,Near Geeta high chool,T.Dasarahalli,B'lore-560057.Presently At Matru Krupa Nilaya,Near Nadagowda Residence,Vinayaka Nagar,Bagalkot-587101
 
BEFORE: 
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

 

COMPLAINTS FILED ON: 28.09.2011

DISPOSED ON:28.11.2011.

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

 

28th DAY OF NOVEMBER-2011

 

  PRESENT:-  SRI. B.S. REDDY                       PRESIDENT

                     SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA              MEMBER

                     SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA                      MEMBER

 

 

COMPLAINT Nos.1813/2011, 1814/2011

                                       

Complaint no.1813/2011

ComplAINANTS

 

 

 

 

 

1.     Sri.Ramachandra V.Bennur

S/o Venkappa,

Aged bout 51 years,

2.   Jagadish V.Bennur,

    S/o Venkappa,

    Aged about 41 years,

 

    Both are residents of

    No.1578, Prashant Nagar,

    Pipeline Road,

    Near Geeta High School,          

    T.Dasarahalli,

    Bangalore-560 057.

 

    Presently residing at:

    Matru Krupa Nilaya,

    Near Nadagouda Residence,

    Vinayak Nagar,

    Bagalkot-587101.

 

    Advocate:Sri.Suresh   

    D.Deshpande.

 

V/s

 

Complaint no.1814/2011

ComplAINANTS

 

 

 

 

1.   Yankanna K.Bennur

   S/o Late Krishnappa,

   Aged about 55 years,

 

2.   Devareddi.A.Patil

   S/o Adiyappa,

   Aged about 52 years,

 

   Both are residents of

   No.1578, Prashant Nagar,

   Pipeline Road,

   Near Geeta High School,     

   T.Dasarahalli,

   Bangalore-560 057.

 

   Presently residing

   at:Matru Krupa Nilaya,

   Near Nadagouda Residence,

   Vinayak Nagar,

   Bagalkot-587101.

 

(Adv:Sri.Suresh D.Deshpande.)

 

OPPOSITE PARTY

   V.Bhaskar Reddy,

   Partner-NEW CITI,

   No.1 and 2, “Shreshta”,

   Sai Krishna Avenue,

   4th Main, Kuvempunagar,

   Doddalalasandra,

   Kanakapura Main Road,

   Bangalore-560 062.

 

   Ex-parte.

O R D E R

 

SRI. B.S. REDDY, PRESIDENT

 

These two complaints by the respective complainants U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 is for a direction to OP to pay the advance sale consideration paid towards allotment of sites and for damages on the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

 

2. Since OP is common in both these complaints, the questions involved and the relief’s claimed are similar, in order to avoid the repetition of facts and multiplicity of reasoning’s, both these complaints are stand disposed of by this common order.

3. In spite of service of notice, OP failed to appear, hence placed ex-parte.

4.The complainants filed affidavit evidence in order to substantiate the complaint averments.

5. Arguments heard from complainant’s side.

6.We have gone through the complaint averments, the documents produced, affidavit evidence of the complainants. On the basis of these materials it becomes clear that OP being a partner of New Citi Firm engaged in formation of layouts for allotting the residential sites proposed to form a layout called “New Citi” at Abbanakuppe Village, Ittamadu Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagaram Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. The complainants entered into an agreement of sale on 16.02.2008 with the OP whereby OP agreed to sell a site bearing No.90 measuring 2400 Sq.ft to the complainant, in complaint No.1813/2011 and site No.101 measuring 2400 Sq.Feet to the complainant in complaint No.1814/2011. The complainant in complaint No.1813/2011 has paid advance sale consideration of Rs.6,00,000/- and the complainant in complaint No.1814/2011 paid advance sale consideration of Rs.5,72,000/- and OP executed the agreement deeds acknowledging the receipt of the amounts. OP was unable to form the layout as proposed, though the complainants were always ready and willing to perform their part of contract by paying the balance consideration. OP was unable to fulfill his obligation of forming the layout. The complainants called upon OP to refund the advance sale consideration paid with interest at 18% p.a. on 07.10.2010, OP has replied to the letters of the complainants stating that the present Government has cancelled the previous Notifications and has released the CDP plan and issuing the sanctions and approval for Development of immovable properties and OP is in the process of obtaining the sanctions and approval for the project. Further OP has undertaken to repay the advance sale consideration by the end of December-2010 but till today he has not repaid the same. Thus the complainants are claiming refund of the amount with damages of RS.2,00,000/- each.

            After going through the reply letter of the OP addressed to the complainants, it becomes clear that OP has admitted the receipt of the advance sale consideration as shown in the agreement deeds and has undertaken to repay the same by the end of December-2010. OP failed to keep up his undertaking, as a result these complainants were compelled to approach this Forum. There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged affidavit evidence of the complainants. The very fact of OP remaining ex-parte leads to draw inference that OP is admitting the claim of the complainants. When OP was unable to form the layout and allot the sites, it would have been fair on his part to refund the advance sale consideration. Had these complainants invested the said amount in some other project they would have got good returns from the same. The very fact of OP neither forming a layout and allotting the sites nor refunding the advance sale consideration received amounts to deficiency in service on his part. The complainants are entitled for refund of the amount with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of agreement deeds till the date of realization as compensation along with litigation costs of Rs.2,000/- each. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

O R D E R

 

The complaints filed by the complainants allowed in part.

In complaint No.1813/2011 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 16.02.2008, till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainants.

 

In complaint No.1814/2011 OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.5,72,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 16.02.2008, till the date of realization and pay litigation costs of Rs.2,000/- to the complainants.

 

 OP to comply the order within four weeks from the date of this order.

Send the copy of this order to both the parties free of cost.

 

This original order shall be kept in the file of the complaint No.1813/2011 and a copy of it shall be placed in other complaint.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 28th day of NOVEMBER– 2011.)

 

    

 

MEMBER                         MEMBER                  PRESIDENT

Cs.

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.