COMPLAINT FILED: 28.05.2009<br /> DISPOSED ON: 31.09.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 31ST AUGUST 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M.BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1214/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANTS 1) Mr.Deepak GosainS/o.Mr.S.S.GosainR/at Block No.D/1, Civil Township,Rourkella-769004,Orissa.Now at: No2, 2nd Floor, Golden Point One,Behind Nissan Car Showroom, QueensRoad, Bangalore-52.2) Mr.Santosh Shetty,S/o.B.D.Shetty, R/at.P.O.Box, No.181681,Al Mulla Building, 2nd Floor, Office 207, Opp: Sheraton Diera, Deira, Dubai,United Arab EmiratesAlso having a place of Residence at : Flat No.105,Leela Apartments,Prabat Colony Santacruz (E),Bombay-400 055.Represented by his GPA Holder Mr.Deepak GosainAdvocate – Sri.C.M.PoonachaV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Sripriya Developers, No.89/1,1st Floor,Narasamma Complex,Bangalore-560 002.Rep. by its Managing PartnerMr.Ramesh Babu.Also having an office at,No.193/26, 1st floor, 6th Block, Jayanagar,Bangalore-560 082.And another office at No.802, ‘A’ Wing, Mittal Towers, M.G. Road, Bangalore –560 001.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant with respect to site No.66 or in the alternative refund sale consideration of Rs.2,25,000/- with interest and pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> 2. Complainant being lured away with the advertisement and publicity given by the OP who claims to be a promoter and developer of layout consisting of residential sites on various dimensions in and around Bangalore thought of purchasing a plot measuring 40’ x 60’ in the project floated by the OP in the name and style “Krishna Gardens”. The total cost of the said site was fixed at Rs.3,12,000/-. A sale agreement came to be executed in the month of July’ 1995. Complainant went on paying a sital value. In all he paid Rs.2,25,000/-. OP promised to complete the project on or before December’ 1996, but failed to do so. When complainant visited the alleged layout there were no developmental activities at all. No civil amenities are provided. The repeated request and demands made by the complainant to OP to receive remaining amount of Rs.87,000/- and execute the registered sale deed with respect to the said site No.66 allotted to him went in futile. Though complainant invested his hard earned money he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment. It is all because of the hostile attitude of the OP. Complainant caused legal notice on 25-09-2008 there was no response. Hence, complaint felt unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 3. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were sent to the OP with admitted given address. But notices returned as OP left. Then complainant took a paper publication the notice was duly published in the newspaper service was held sufficient. OP did not appear. The absence of the OP does not appear to be as bonafide and reasonable. Hence OP is placed Ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP didn’t participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 5. It is the case of the complainant that he being carried away with the publicity given by the OP who claims to be a promoter and developer of residential layout thought of purchasing a plot measuring 40’ x 60’ in the project floated by the OP in the name and style “Krishna Gardens” OP accepted his membership and allotted him a site No.66. A sale agreement came to be executed in the month on July’1995. Complainant went on paying the sital value in all he paid Rs.2,25,000/-. OP acknowledged the receipt of the same. When complainant visited the alleged layout to his utter shock and surprise there were no developmental activities at all. The project was not at all completed, there were no civil amenities as promised.<br /> <br /> 6. It is further contended by the complainant that OP promised to complete the said project by December’ 1996, but it failed to do so. Complainant is willing and ready to pay remaining amount of Rs.87,000/- and to get sale deed executed in his favour, but there is no positive response from the OP. Being fedup with the hostile attitude of the OP complainant even caused the legal notice, copy of the legal notice is produced. Again there was no response. <br /> <br /> 7. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent it finds support from the undisputed documents. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. The non-appearance of the OP even after the due publication of the notice in the newspaper leads us to draw an inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant. Though complainant invested his hard earned money he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment. OP having retained the said huge amount without registering the site and completing the project and putting the complainant in possession accrued wrongful gain to self thereby caused wrongful loss to the complainant that to for not fault of his. <br /> <br /> 8. We are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. On going through the records it appears in the near future OP is not going to complete the said project. As on today layout is not approved by the statutory authority no such sites ave available at the disposal of the OP free from encumbrance. So no purpose will be served by issuing a direction to OP to register site No.66 that too when there is no proof of its actual existence. In our view justice will be by directing the OP to refund the sital value paid by the complainant with interest and pay some compensation, basing on the guidence value of the site at Bangalore, so also around the Bangalore. With these reasons we proceed to pass the following :<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> Complaint is allowed in part.<br /> <br /> OP is directed to refund Rs.2,25,000/- with 10% interest from January’ 1996 till realization and also pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-.<br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 31st day of August 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> Nrs<br />