BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 26^st DAY OF APRIL 2022

ORDER

SRI H.JANARDHAN, MEMBER:

1.This complaint is filed under section 34 of C.P. Act, 2019 seeking reliefs against the OPs.

a) To direct the Opposite parties to pay sum of Rs. Rs.5,77,296/-  which is  inclusive of invested amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and  interest at the rate of Rs.24% P.A. from 26.01.2016 to 15.03.2021.

b) To direct the OPs to pay the interest on Rs.5,77,296/- from 10.07.2021 to till the date of payment at the rate of interest at 24% p.a.

c) To direct the OPs to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and physical suffering

2. The case of complainant in brief is as under.

The complainant has filed this complaint against OPs. Based on representation and assurance of the OPs the complainant intended to purchase site  bearing no.537A measuring East-West:30ft and North-South:40  and site for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. The complainant on the assurance paid amount to the OPs towards said site. The complainant paid total  sale consideration amount  of Rs.2,50,000/- by way of cheque dt.26.01.2016. After payment of entire sale consideration OPs have executed Memorandum of Understating  dt.05.03.2016 in favour of the complainant.  The OPs have assured that they will complete  the conversion work,  get katha and they will register the said site in favour of the complainant. Believing the words of OPs, the complainant has paid total  sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- and further  OPs assured  that they will perform their part of obligation to register the sale deed  in favour of the complainant, but OPs did not perform their part of their duty. Hence, another MOU was entered between the parties on 24.02.2018. After renewal of said MOU, OPs failed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the complainant. The complainant requested several times to register the sale deed in favour of the complainant, but OPs failed to register sale deed and finally without any other option complainant cancelled the Memorandum of Understanding on 02.03.2019 and requested the OPs to refund sale consideration amount. But,  OPs fails to pay the amount to the  complainant. Even after several demands  OPs did not refund the amount to the complainant. But, executed Memorandum of Understating by renewing the sale agreement dt.24.02.2018 by mutual consent of parties. After renewal of the same, the OPs failed to register the sale deed in favour of the complainant. Being aggrieved by the act of  OPs complainant got issued legal notice dt.16.03.2021 demanding OPs for refund of amount  along with interest.  After service of notice they had given reply to the said legal notice dt.30.03.2021 stating that OPs have admitted the claim of the complainant, further stated that OPs are ready to give alternative  site property to the complainant, but complainant has to pay additional  amount to the existing price.  After receipt of notice, complainant came to know that he had paid Rs.2,50,000/- for the site bearing no.537A. But, in spite of repeated requests, OPs fails to refund amount  and not executed sale deed in favour of the complainant. Complainant aggrieved by said act present complaint came to be filed.

3.     In response to  notice, OPs appeared through their counsel and filed version. They submits that complaint is not maintainable  and bad for  non-joinder of parties and complaint is filed by the complainant with intention to harass  to extract money from the OPs.  Complainant had approached OPs on 2016 and visited the plot situated at SAN CITY KAVERI  2^nd phase A block at Mallinathapura village, Kempanahalli village, Bollanahalli village,  Bellikeri hobli, Hunsur Tq., Mysore Dist and complainant had booked the plot bearing site No.537A at the aforesaid  place for total sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- and complainant had made payment of Rs.2,50,000/- on 26.01.2016 by way of cheque. Further  both complainant and OPs have executed MOU on 05.03.2016. The OPs supposed to register the sale deed in favour of the complainant within two years from the date of execution of MOU. However, the OP had applied for conversion of land before the Government of Karnataka in November 2016, whereas the said conversion order was passed by the concerned government  authorities in 2018. Hence, there is a delay  due to act of  state government authorities and not due to the part of OPs.

4.     OP further submits that, in the month of November 2016, due to demonetization OPs have suffered heavily due to financial crisis due to sudden change in monetary policies of the nation. After obtaining approval from the concerned government authorities the OPs were compelled to register this project under RERA and then was permitted to register the plots to the customers. Hence, in compliance of the same OPs were  not able to get registered the aforesaid plot to complainant  as entered upon under MOU.

5.     The complainant by issuing  legal notice  dt.13.03.2021. On  30.03.2021 OPs  replied to the legal notice of the complainant stating the reasons for delay in registration  the plot in favour of the  complainant. This fact was intimated to the complainant about registration of his plot  according to the seniority. Further,  as per   MOU executed, OPs offered complainant  an exchange of site in another project of the OPs which was ready for registration. But the complainant  did not agree for the  same. He has  even filed the  said complaint to  exploit the OPs. Further,  OPs submit  due to outbreak of Virus COVID-19, the OPs were unable to get the plot registered in favour of  complainant within stipulated time and could not refund the amount.  Further OPs denied other allegations and   prays for dismissal of the complaint.

6.     Complainant lead his evidence and examined as PW1 and get marked exhibits P1to P8. OPs also lead their evidence and examined as RW1, but no documents marked.

7.     Heard arguments of both parties.

8.  The following points arises for our consideration.

1. Whether complainants proves deficiency of service/negligence on the part of the OP?

2. Whether the complainants are entitled to the reliefs mentioned in the complainant?

3. What Order?

9. Our answer to the above points are as under

Point No.1 & 2: Affirmative

        Point No.3:  As per final order.

                                REASONS

10. Point No.1 & 2: It is true and admitted fact that the complainant paid Rs.2,50,000/- to the OPs towards site  bearing no.537A measuring 30X40ft., but no sale deed was executed. However, the complainant and OPs have executed Memorandum of Understanding dt.05.03.2016 vide Exhibit P1, but OPs  fails to execute sale deed in favour of the complainant within stipulated time. The OPs not placed any record to show that on what date they applied for conversion and on what date conversion order has been obtained. The OPs also contend that the delay was due to demonetization in November 2016. Infact the complainant could were taken this plea and not OPs. OPs were not liable to pay any amount and they cannot  put up delay due to demonetization.

11.  In response to the legal notice dt.13.03.2021, the OPs issued reply dt.30.03.2021. OPs had the  best known to them not placed any documentary evidence for compliance of the request of the complainant.

12. Accordingly, the complainant got cancelled renewed Memorandum of Understanding and demanded OPs for refund of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest at 24% P.A. and compensation.

13. It has been proved that the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- is lying with OPs since 2016. The claim of interest at 24% P.A. is exorbitant. In the recent judgement of Supreme Court of India was pleased to award the interest @ 9% P.A.. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum on Rs.2,50,000/- from the date of payment till realization. The complainant is not entitled to compensation in addition to interest. The complainant has availed service of advocate, therefore cost of litigation is quantified at Rs.10,000/-. OPs are liable to refund Rs.2,50,000/- with interest at 9%P.A. from the date of payment till realization. OPs are also liable to pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation. It is necessary to impose time limit on OPs to comply this order.

14. In view of the above discussions the complaint is allowed in part.  We answer point no.1 & 2 accordingly.

 15. In the result, we proceed to pass the following

ORDER

1. Complaint is allowed in part.
2.  All OPs shall refund  Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant  along with interest at 9% P.A in the form of  compensation  from the date of payment till realization.
3.  OPs shall pay   Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards as cost of litigation.
4.  OPs  are further directed to comply this  order within 60 days from this date. 
5.    Furnish the copy of this order to both the parties.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Commission on this 26^th day of April, 2022).

(RENUKADEVI DESHAPANDE)    (H.JANARDHAN)    (K.S.BILAGI)

    MEMBER                         MEMBER               PRESIDENT

Documents produced by the Complainant which are as follows:-

Documents produced by the OP which are as follows:-

-Nil-