COMPLAINT FILED: 26.11.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 07th MARCH 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 2561/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANTS 1. Mrs. Padmashree Rao Vishnuraj,<br /> Wife of Vishnuraj Rao Kunjur,<br /> Aged about 30 years,<br /> Residing at # 257, <br /> Rainbow Drive,<br /> Sarjapur Road,<br /> Doddakanneli,<br /> Bangalore – 560 035.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Mr. Vishnuraj Rao Kunjur,<br /> Son of Vyasa Rao Kunjur,<br /> Aged about 34 years,<br /> Residing at # 257,<br /> Rainbow Drive,<br /> Sarjapur Road,<br /> Doddakanneli,<br /> Bangalore – 560 035.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (Adinath Narde)<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY M/s. Pavithra Housing Development Co. Pvt. Ltd.,<br /> Represented by its <br /> Managing Director,<br /> Mr. Shantha Kumar,<br /> A Limited Company having its Registered Office at No. 3/9,<br /> Berlie Street Cross,<br /> Langford Town,<br /> Bangalore – 560 025.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<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 complete the construction of Flat No. F-17 and handover the possession and pay a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- and for such other reliefs 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 /> Complainants being lured away with the advertisement and propaganda issued by the OP, who claims to be the builders and developers of the multistoryed residential flats in and around Bangalore, thought of purchasing a flat No. F-17 in the project floated by the OP in the name and style “Pavithra Garden Flats” for a total cost of Rs.12,12,075/- including car parking slot. An agreement came to the executed on 10.03.2004. OP promised to complete the construction and handover the flat on or before 31.03.2005. Complainant made payment of Rs.1,21,207/- and ready and willing to pay the remaining amount. But to the utter shock and surprise of the complainant there were no developmental activities at all. OP did not complete the said project, on the other hand intended to sell the said site for higher price to the third party so as to defraud the intending purchasers of the flat like complainant. Complainant felt the foul play. Their repeated requests and demands made to OP, went in futile. Complainant got issued the legal notice on 25.06.2008. Again there was no response. Though they invested their hard earned money, they are unable to reap the fruits of their investment. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances they are advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were sent to the OP. The said notice returned un-served as left, then complainant took the paper publication. Notice was published in the Times of India. The service is held sufficient. OP remained absent. The absence of the OP does not appears to be as bonafide and reasonable, hence OP is placed ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP did not participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. It is the case of the complainants that they entered into an agreement with the OP on 10.03.2004 for the purpose of purchase of flat No. F-17 in the project floated by the OP in the name and style “Pavithra Garden Flats”. The total cost fixed for the said two bed room flat was Rs.12,12,075/- including a car parking slot. The agreement copy is produced. OP promised to complete the said construction on or before 31.03.2005. Towards the cost of the flat complainant has made a part payment of Rs.96,207/- on 10.03.2004 and Rs.25,000/- on 03.03.2004. Complainants were ready to pay the remaining balance. <br /> <br /> 5. It is further contended by the complainants that when they visited the said site, to their utter shock and surprise there were no developmental activities at all. The construction was not started as promised. On enquiry complainants came to know that OP is in a hurry to dispose of the said site to the third party. Immediately complainants contacted the OP and requested OP to comply its promise made under the agreement, but it went in vain. Then complainants got issued the legal notice on 25.06.2008. Again there was no response. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent, which finds corroboration from the contents of the undisputed documents. There is nothing to discard their sworn testimony.<br /> <br /> 6. The non-appearance of the OP leads us to draw an inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. Though complainant invested their hard earned money, they are unable to reap the fruits of their investment. Of course as against the total cost of the Rs.12,12,075/- complainants have paid only Rs.1,27,207/-. What made the complainant to wait for 3 years to cause the legal notice in the month of June 2008, though OP promised to complete the said project by 31.03.2005 is not known. The delay in knocking the doors of court of equity is not satisfactorily explained.<br /> <br /> 7. Anyhow taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, one thing is made clear by the complainants themselves that OP has not completed the said project nor the construction is completed. When that is so, we cannot issue a direction to the OP to complete the construction and handover the possession of the flat. In our view the justice will be met by directing the OP to refund whatever the amount that is paid by the complainants along with interest with some token of compensation and litigation cost. We are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.1,21,207/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from April 2004 till realization and also pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- along with a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainants. This order is to be complied within 4 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 07th day of March 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br />