Complaints filed on: 22-09-2022

                                                      Disposed on: 24-03-2023

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

          DATED THIS THE 24^th DAY OF MARCH 2023

PRESENT

SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com., LLM., PRESIDENT

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., LLB. (Spl)., LADY MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., LLB. (Spl)., LADY MEMBER

CC.No.140/2022

1.       Sri. Rajesh

S/o Channamallikarjunaiah Swamy,

A/a 24 Years,

2.       Smt. Sowgandhika

W/o Channamallikarjunaiah Swamy

Aged about 51 years,

Both are R/at Dibburu Janatha Colony,

Bheemasandra, Tumakuru.      

……….Complainant

 (By Sri.M.D.Suresha, Advocate)

V/s

1.       The Manager,

          Swarnagruhara-1,

          Red Cross Building,

          Ashoka Road, Tumakuru.

2.       The Manager,

          Yes Bank, 8^th Floor,

          Municipal Ground Floor-III,

          Kasturaba Road,

          Bengaluru-560 001.

……….Opposite Party

(OP1 Sri. B.R.Devaraju, Advocate)

(OP2 - served absent)

:ORDER:

BY SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed by the complainants against the OPs U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 with a prayer to direct the OPs to give PMAY subsidy amount of Rs.2,67,000/- with interest and Rs.50,000/- towards damages and Rs.50,000/- towards cost of the litigation.

2.       The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-

The OP No.1 is running a project under the name and style as residential project, Swarnagruha-I to provide residential Flats to the needful persons.  As per brochure, complainants agreed to purchase one Flat and after negotiations, the OPs offered the total consideration of the property at Rs.7,75,000/-.  Accordingly the said contract entered between OP No.1 and the complainants on an unregistered agreement of sale was executed on Rs.200/- denomination stamp paper on 29.09.2018.   In this regard, the complainants have paid an advance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- in three installments and it was agreed between OP No.1 and complainants to pay the balance consideration of Rs.6,75,000/- at the time of execution of the absolute sale deed in favour of the complainants pertaining to the said property.  At the time of registration, the said amount was secured and paid by obtaining loan from OP No.2 as the OP No.1 project has been collaborated with OP No.2.   It is further submitted that as permissible under the applicable law and of pro-rata share in the common areas, more fully set out under schedule ‘C’ herein i.e. Apartment bearing NO.C-129 having 29.01 square meter, on ground floor in Block-C with UDS 20.89 square meter as permissible under the applicable law with pro-rata share in common area with boundaries East:Open sky, West:Corridor, North:Flat No.130, South:Flat No.128. 

The complainant further submitted that according the advertisement, the OP No.1 has stated that the OPs will also give PMAY subsidy of Rs.2,67,000/- to the party who have purchased the plot are not having any house property in the their names and according to the said condition only the complainant applied for Apartment.  The complainants have applied to grant PMAY subsidy by submitting an application on 27.04.2022 and the said application given by the complainants was rejected from the OPs stating that the house property stands in the name of complainant’s Mother and the OPs have issued an one clause certificate stating as “case is disqualified for CLSS” which is mentioned as stated below as per NHB guideline to avail subsidy it must be 1^st house of the family in caption case as per application from Co-Applicant reside in Row House so the OPs have considered current property as second house of the family dated:18.05.2022 and the said allegations made by the OPs against the complainants is a baseless and a created allegations made against the complainants. 

The complainant further submitted that when the complainants approached the OPs to enquire about rejection of the subsidy application, the OPs have stated that due to some technical reasons, the application got rejected and asked the complainants again to apply for subsidy and hence the complainants applied 2^nd time for subsidy under PMAY scheme.  The said application also rejected by the OPs on the same grounds.  It is further submitted that when the complainants approached the OPs to enquire about rejection of 2^nd application for subsidy, the OPs again asked the complainants to give another requisition to claim PMAY.  Believing the words of the OPs, the complainants have submitted third claim application to provide PMAY subsidy, but the OPs have again intentionally to defraud and to cheat the complainants, the OPs have stated that there was completely delay for considering the 3^rd application submitted by the complainants to claim PMAY subsidy.  Even though the complainant is liable to get PMAY subsidy, the OPs intentionally to defraud and cheat the complainants, the OPs cooked up and concocted story.  The act of the OPs is nothing but deficiency in service.   Hence, the complainant issued legal notice to the OPs, but the OPs did not reply to the said notice even the notice was served on the OPs.  Without any alternative, the complainant filed this complaint.    

3.       On receipt of notice by this Commission, the OP No.2 remained absent, OP No.1 appeared through counsel, but not filed the version in spite of sufficient time was granted.  Hence, version of OP1 is taken as NIL.

4.       The complainant No.1 has filed his affidavit evidence.  The Ops have not filed their affidavit evidence. Later OP1 filed written arguments.

5.       Complainant counsel filed written arguments and submits that his arguments may be taken as heard.   Perused the written arguments submitted by the complainant & OP No.1.

6.       On perusal of copy of complaint and documents produced by the complainant and written augments of OP No.1, the points that would arise for our consideration are:

1)                    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OPs?

2)                     Whether complainant is entitled for reliefs sought for?

7.       Our findings to the aforesaid points are as under:

Point No.1: Partly in the Affirmative

Point No.2: As per the final order

:REASONS:

8.       The complainants are agreed to purchase one Flat with OP No.1 for the total consideration of Rs.7,75,000/- and the complainants have paid an advance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- in 3 installments.  At the time of registration, the balance sale consideration was paid by obtaining loan from OP No.2.  According to the advertisement, the OP No.1 has stated that OPs will give PMAY subsidy of Rs.2,67,000/- to the party who have purchased the plot are not having any house property in their names.  The complainants have applied to grant PMAY subsidy by submitting an application on 27.04.2022 and the said application given by the complainants was rejected from the OPs stating that the house property stands in the name of complainant’s Mother and the OPs have issued one clause certificate stating as “case is disqualified for CLSS”.  Repeatedly requisitions taken from the complainants for claiming subsidy amount, but rejected.   

9.       In the written arguments, the OP No.1 stated that as per (NHB), the following beneficiaries are eligible for subsidy amount of Rs.2,67,000/- under lower income group.  They are;

1. Woman and not having own house concrete roofed and the same is mandatory
2. The annual income of such woman is within Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs3,00,000/-.

Hence, question of paying PMAY subsidy amount of Rs.2,67,000/- by OP No.1 to the complainant did not arise, as the mud-house was stands in the name of co-applicant.  

10.     In the present case, the OPs are not produced any documents/evidence to show that the mud house property stands in the co-applicant.  Therefore, the OPs are failed to prove their case and thereby caused deficiency of service.  Hence, the present house becomes the 1^st house of the complainants and they are entitled to claim PMAY subsidy of Rs.2,67,000/- from the OPs with interest @ 8% PA from the date of complaint to till realization.  For the act of OPs, the complainants are compelled to approach this commission, hence, they are entitled for compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.  Accordingly, we pass the following:-

:ORDER:

The complaint filed by the complainants is allowed in part.

The OP Nos. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.2,67,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 8% Per Annum from the date of complaint to till realization.

The OP Nos. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

Further, the OP Nos. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to comply the above order within 45 days from the date of receipt/knowledge of the order.

Supply free copy of this order to both parties