COMPLAINT FILED:01.02.2012
DISPOSED ON:28.03.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
28th DAY OF MARCH 2012
PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.221/2012
Complainant | Sri Salim Pazheri Kunnummal S/o Moidu Hajee, Aged about 42 years, Residing at P.B.No.35462 Dera, Dubai, UAE. Represented by SPA Holder Sri ABDUL JALEEL H.C. S/o Haji T Hussainar, Aged about 45 years, Residing at No.22, 2nd Main Road, 2nd Cross, Hosahalli, Vijaynagar, Bangalore-560 040. Adv:Sri.M.H.Haneef V/s. |
OPPOSITE PARTIES | 1. The President Karnataka Legislative Council Secretariat Employees Welfare Forum (R) 2. The Proprietor, M/s Venkateshwara Estate and Builders, Registered Office at No.2, 2nd Floor, 4th Main Road, Nehru Nagar, Seshadripuram, Bangalore-560 020, Represented by Sri.K.V.Venkatesh. Placed Ex-parte. |
O R D E R
Sri.B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT
The complainant through his Special Power of Attorney Holder filed this complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 seeking direction against the Ops to register the sale deed and deliver possession of the allotted site alternatively to repay the entire amount deposited with interest at 24% p.a. and to award compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- on the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.
2. In spite of service of notice, Ops 1 & 2 failed to appear without any justifiable cause, hence placed ex-parte.
3. The Special Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant filed affidavit evidence to substantiate complaint averments.
4. We have gone through the complaint averments, the documents produced and the affidavit evidence of the P.A.Holder of the complainant. On the basis of these materials, it becomes clear that OP1 is the President of the Karnataka Legislative Council Secretariat Employees Welfare Forum(R), which is registered body, constituted for the benefit of its members. Op2 is the Developer doing the Real Estate Business. The complainant became member of OP1 by paying membership fee Rs.1500/- on 25.12.2006. Ops offered sites at Vayuja Council Gardens situated at Hoovinayakanahalli Village, jala Hobli, Bangalore Rural District, measuring 2400 Sq.ft to its members at Rs.450/- per sq.ft. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- and applied for allotment of the site. OP2 issued the receipt bearing No.097. Both Ops executed the agreement deed on 06.01.2007 incorporating the terms and conditions and acknowledging the receipt of Rs.2,70,000/- towards initial sale consideration. The complainant paid further sum of Rs.2,70,000/- towards 2nd instalment on 06.06.2007 to Ops and OP2 has issued the receipt. Further the complainant paid an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- towards 3rd instalment on 08.11.2007 to Ops, OP2 has issued the receipt. Thus in all the complainant has paid sum of Rs.8,10,000/- towards sale consideration of the site. Ops failed to fulfill their obligation of executing the sale deed in respect of the said site. The complainant approached Ops for refund of the amount, but Ops have not complied the demand. On 29.05.2010, OP1 has issued the letter stating that the land proposed for forming the layout has been notified by KAIDBA, the same caused delay in forming the layout Ops are having other projects near International Airport, they are expecting the approvals in short period, once they get the approval Plan from concerned authority, the site number will be issued and registration will be done as per the seniority. The other project near Hoskote is approved if the complainant is interested in that project the site numbers will be issued and registration will be done immediately. Thus it becomes clear that Ops were unable to form the layout proposed wherein they assured to allot the site while collecting the amount from the complainant. When Ops were unable to form the layout and allot the site, it would have been fair enough on their part to refund the amount received towards initial sale consideration. The act of Ops neither forming any layout and allotting the site by executing the registered sale deed nor refunding the amount received amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
6. There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged affidavit evidence of the Special Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant and the documents produced. The very fact of Ops remaining ex-parte leads to draw inference that Ops are admitting the claim of the complainant. Since no layout has been formed by Ops, the direction cannot be issued to register the sale deed and deliver possession of the site. The complainant is entitled for the alternative relief for refund of the amount of Rs.8,10,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. by way of compensation from the respective date of payments till the date of realization along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.
Ops are directed to refund an amount of Rs.8,10,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the respective date of payments, till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.
This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.
Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.
(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 MARCH-2012.)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Cs.
