Complaint filed on: 15-03-2010 <br /> Disposed on: 16-09-2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT <br /> CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052 <br /> <br /> C.C.No.577/2010<br /> DATED THIS THE 16th SEPTEMBER 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT<br /> SRI.GANGANARASAIAH., MEMBER<br /> SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER<br /> <br /> Complainant: - <br /> <br /> Dr.Mahesh.R.,<br /> No.273, II Main,<br /> 2nd Stage, <br /> West of Chord Road, <br /> Bangalore-560 086 <br /> <br /> <br /> V/s<br /> Opposite party: - <br /> <br /> The Commissioner,<br /> Bangalore Development <br /> Authority, Palace Guttahalli,<br /> Bellary Road, Bangalore<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT., <br /> <br /> The Grievance of the complainant against the opposite party [hereinafter called as OP for short) in brief is that, he purchased a site No.227 in public auction, in the auction held by the OP on 11-9-2006 for a total consideration of Rs.92,18,818/-. That the OP insisted upon payment of entire amount failing which to cancel the allotment, therefore he by raising loan arranged and paid the entire amount on different dates. The OP delivered vacant possession of site on 2-11-2007 by executing a registered sale deed, on the same day. That the OP has provided several opportunities to other auction purchasers like a sister of the complainant to make payment in installments but no such facility was given to him, which amounts discrimination, OP collected entire amount without giving time which amounts to deficiency. Therefore he is entitled for interest at 18% per annum. That the OP by suppressing the pendency of W.P.No.49357/2004 before the Hon’ble High Court has rejected his claim for interest and stated that he would not have borrowed loan, if the OP had given him time to make payment and therefore has prayed for a direction to the OP to pay interest at 18% per annum on Rs.92,18,818/- and Rs.7,83,610/- paid towards registration charges and to award damages. <br /> <br /> 2. OP has appeared through his advocate and filed version, contending that the complaint is not maintainable and admitted selling the site no.227 in an auction sale in favour of the complainant for total consideration as stated by the complainant. It is further contended that the complainant was required to pay the cost of the site as per the terms of the auction sale which was one of the conditions of auction sale. That the complainant after participation in the auction sale paid entire consideration and there was no deficiency at their end and stated that the site was auctioned subject to the result of W.P. pending and denying their liability has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and OP have filed their affidavit evidence reiterating what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant alongwith with the complaint has produced a copy of notification issued for auctioning the site, copy of statement containing details of payment and copies of certain correspondences that took place between the parties besides a copy of auction sale deed. The OP has not produced any documents. We have heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 4. On the above materials following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the OP has <br /> caused deficiency in his service in not paying <br /> interest on the sale consideration paid by him to <br /> the OP?<br /> 2. To what reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:<br /> Point no.1: In the negative <br /> Point no.2: See the final Order<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Answer on Point No.1: On going through the contents of the complaint, it is not possible to gather as to what the real grievance of the complainant is, however on going through it, it emerges that the OP did not allow the complainant to pay the sale consideration of site in installments. Therefore he had to avail loan for paying consideration amount and as a result he was required to pay interest and therefore has prayed for awarding interest on consideration amount paid by him against the OP by further contending as if the OP has extended facility of paying sale consideration in installments to other auction purchasers. <br /> <br /> 7. The complainant himself has admitted that he purchased site no.227 in an auction sale held by the OP. Thus it goes unsaying that the complainant as a purchasers is bound by the terms and conditions of the auction sale and pay the sale consideration and he can not seek time to pay the consideration amount in installments. The complainant even then shown to have paid sale consideration in three installments on three different dates. When the auction purchaser is bound by the terms and condition of auction sale, it is not understandable as how the complainant can claim that he has not been given opportunity to pay sale consideration in installments. The complainant has admitted after paying lost installments on 8-11-2006 sale deed was executed on 2-4-2007 and possession was also delivered to him on the same day. In the complaint, it is not his case that the OP after receipt of sale consideration delayed execution of sale deed and therefore that delay amounts to deficiency and the OP is therefore liable to pay damages for that delay in transfer of title. That is not at all his case. Therefore why the OP is required to pay interest on Rs.92,18,818-00 and on registration fee of Rs.7,83,610/- is not understandable and it cannot be accepted. <br /> <br /> 8. It is further alleged by the complainant that the OP has given opportunity to other auction purchasers to pay sale consideration in installments, but not to him and that amounts to discrimination. This ground urged by the complainant. In our view is incompatible and do not sound to reasons. On going through the copies of two letters, the complainant had addressed to the OP on 27-9-2008 and 10-11-2006 and another letter on 27-9-2006 the complainant has alleged as if there was delay in execution of sale deed that he had raised loan to pay sital value and because of the OP did not give him time to pay the sital value in installments, he was forced to borrow loan and paid the sale consideration and therefore demanded payment of interest as already stated by us. It is not the case of the complainant that the OP has caused delay in execution of title deed and therefore has come up with this complaint seeking damages for the delay. The complaint, in our view is direction less and the complainant therefore has not made out the case against the OP to point any deficiency in his service and the complainant is therefore is liable to be dismissed. With the result, we answer point no.1 in the negative and pass the following order.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complaint is dismissed. Both the parties to bear their own costs. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, Got it transcribed and corrected, Pronounced on the Open Forum on this 16th September 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> Member Member President<br />