Date of filing:16.03.2021

                                                               Date of Disposal:31.10.2022

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                               BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 31^st DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.337/2021

PRESENT:

SRI.RAJU K.S,

SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR,:MEMBER

Dhemaan Aditya,

S/o Gayatri Mandal,

No.192/3B Indian Express Layout Virupakshapura,

V/s

VSAN Infrastructure Private Limited,

Sancity Registered office,

Address:No.2/117 Ground Floor,

Byadarahalli College Stop,

Hosahalli Gollara Palya,

Magadi Main Road,

Vishwaneedam Post,

Bangalore-560 091.……      OPPOSITE PARTY

   Opposite party rep by Sri.R.Hari Prasad, Adv.,

//JUDGEMENT//

BY SRI.SHIVARAMA K, PRESIDENT

The complainant party in person has filed this complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 seeking for a direction to the opposite party to get the site registered in favour of the complainant without demanding for extra money and for a direction to pay a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the deficiency of service and cost of the litigation and such other relief as this commission deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 

2. It is not in dispute that the complainant had approached opposite party in the Year-2015 and booked the plot bearing site No.223 for a total consideration amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and the complainant had paid the said amount on various dates.  Further, it is not in dispute that a memorandum of understanding has been executed in between the parties on 28.12.2015 and as per the MOU, the opposite party was supposed to register the sale deed in favour of the complainant within 2 years from the date of execution of the MOU.

3. It is the further case of the complainant that even though 4 years has been elapsed, the opposite party did not register the plot in favour of the complainant and the complainant was supposed to pay only Rs.30,000/- towards electricity and water charges, but opposite party had sent a letter on 23.09.2019 demanding Rs.93,000/- for registration.  Hence, the act of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice and the opposite party failed to provide proper services.  Hence, it amounts to deficiency of service.  Hence, the complaint came to be filed.

4. It is the further case of the opposite party that he had applied for conversion of the land in the month of November-2016 and obtained the order only in the year 2018, hence there was delay.  Further, in the month of November-2016 due to demonetization the whole nation suffered heavily in terms of finance, it even halted his various projects developments.  Further, the opposite party was compelled to register the project under “RERA”.  Further, as per MOU, the opposite party offered the complainant an exchange site in another project and it was ready for registration, but the complainant disagreed for the same.  Further on 23.10.2019, the opposite party had sent the call for registration to the complainant requesting the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.93,000/- towards the charges.  The complainant instead of complying the same, denied to pay the said amount.  Further, due to the outbreak of virus Covid-19, the opposite party is not in a situation to refund the amount paid by the complainant.  Hence, it is sought to dismiss the complaint.

 5. To prove the case, the complainant and authorized signatory of opposite party have filed affidavits in the form of their evidence in chief and got marked EX.P1 to P5 documents.     

 6. Both the parties have filed written arguments.

         7. The points that would arise for consideration are as under:

i) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party ?

    ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for the  

         compensation as sought ?

     iii) What order ?

  8.   Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :  In affirmative

Point No.2 :  Partly in affirmative   

Point No.3 :  As per the final order for the following;

REASONS
 

9. POINT NO.1:- The complainant and authorized signatory of opposite party have reiterated the fact stated in their respective pleadings, in the affidavits filed in the form of their evidence in chief.   EX.P5 is the final call sent by the opposite party to the complainant dt.23.10.2019 to get the property registered and demanded a sum of Rs.93,000/-.  Admittedly, there is delay in completion of the project.  It is the contention of the complainant that demonetization is not the reason for non-development of the project and it was only changing the policy.  Admittedly, within two years the project has not been completed as assured.  Hence, we feel there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  Accordingly, we answer this point in affirmative.

10.POINT NO.2:- It is the contention of the complainant that the opposite party demanded amount of Rs.93,000/-.  The complainant sought a direction to the opposite party preventing the opposite party from demanding extra registration charges.   It is not said in the memorandum of understanding filed by the complainant vide Ex.P3 that who has to pay the registration charges.  Normally the price of the plot does not include the registration charges.  Hence, the opposite party cannot be prevented to demand the registration charges. The complainant can pay the registration charges in the office of Sub Registrar and need not pay to the hands of the opposite party.  Further, the complainant claimed a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation.  We feel the opposite party is not entitled for Rs.93,000/- demanded but has to pay in total Rs.30,000/- towards electricity and water charges.   Therefore, the amount shown at Rs.60,000/- towards water and electricity charges and STP in EX.P5 has not been stated in the memorandum of understanding vide EX.P3.  Further, additional registration cost of Rs.50,000/- sought by the opposite party is against EX.P3 memorandum of understanding.  Hence, the complainant shall pay Rs.30,000/- as sought in EX.P3 memorandum of understanding.  In addition to for the delay caused, the complainant is entitled for Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.  Hence, we answer this point partly in affirmative.  

11.POINT NO.3:- In view of the discussion made above, we proceed to pass the following;

Complaint is allowed in part.

The opposite party is directed to get the site in No.223 registered in favour of the complainant after receiving the amount of Rs.30,000/- and the complainant has to bear the registration charges and stamp duty. 

Further, the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost to the complainant. 

The opposite party shall comply the order within 30 days. In case, the opposite party fails to comply the order within the said period, the above said amount of Rs.30,000/- carries interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order till realization.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.

Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

  (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 31^st day of October, 2022)                                            

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA. K)    
•  

Witness examined for the complainants side:

Sri.Dhemaan Aditya, the complainant has filed his affidavit.

Documents marked for the complainant side:

1. Legal notice dt.19.12.2020.
2. Speed post acknowledgement.
3. Memorandum of Understanding dt.14.02.2018.
4. Payment receipt.
5. Demanding letter dt.23.10.2019.

Witness examined for the opposite party side: 

Sri.Bhuvaneshwar N, the authroized Signatory of opposite party company has filed his affidavit.

Documents marked for the Opposite Party side:

-NIL-

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA. K)    
•