BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 10^th DAY OF APRIL 2023

PRESENT

MR. RAVISHANKAR                           : JUDICIAL MEMBER

MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI:       MEMBER

APPEAL NOs. 1344/2019 TO 1353/2019

V/s

        APPEAL NO.1344/2019

        APPEAL NO.1345/2019

        APPEAL NO.1346/2019

        APPEAL NO.1347/2019

        APPEAL NO.1348/2019

        APPEAL NO.1349/2019

        APPEAL NO.1350/2019

        APPEAL NO.1351/2019

        APPEAL NO.1352/2019

        APPEAL NO.1353/2019

COMMON ORDER

BY MR. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.      The appellant/Opposite Party has preferred all these appeals being aggrieved by the Common Order dt.21.03.2019 passed in CC.Nos. 387 to 396/2018 on the file of Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore.  To avoid repetition of work, all these appeals are being disposed of by this Common Order.

2.      The brief facts of the complaints are hereunder;

It is the case of the complainant that enticing by the advertisement of the Opposite Party, the complainants were intended to purchase a site measuring 30x40 feet for a total sale consideration of Rs.6,24,000/- in the project namely ‘Max Orchids Phase-III’ situated at Dyavarahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devenahalli Taluk.  The complainants have paid some amount as advance to the Opposite Party and sale agreements have been executed by the Opposite Party in favour of the complainants.  Inspite of the sale agreement, the project did not commenced and delayed as the land where the project yet to be commenced not at all developed and not formed any layout.  Hence, the complainants have issued a legal notice to the Opposite Party dt.06.02.2018, but, the Opposite Party did not heed the request of the complainants.  Hence, the complaint.

3.      After service of notice, the Opposite Party appeared through counsel and filed version and contended that the complaint filed by the complainant are vexatious and frivolus in nature, hence, not maintainable either in law or on facts, liable to be dismissed in limine.  The Opposite Party running a real estate business and admitted the averments in the complaints with respect to the booking of the sites in their project and payment of advance amount.  But the Opposite Party denied the allegation with respect to the non-development of the activities carried on after receipt of the said amount.  The Opposite Party was waiting for approval from the Government authorities and the allegations of the complainants that the Opposite Party has given false promises, cheated the complainants by receiving the amount are all baseless.  The Opposite Party submits that they are ready and willing to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainants in their project by obtaining all Government approvals, but, the complainants have violated the terms and conditions of the booking form and they are not ready and willing to purchase the sites with full consideration.  Further contended that the Opposite Party is ready to refund the advance amount by deducting 15% to the complainant, hence, there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaints.

4.      After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaints and directed the Opposite Party to refund the advance amount to the complainants with interest along with costs.

5.      Inspite of sufficient opportunities given the appellant has not addressed the arguments.

6.      On perusal of the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the order and documents produced before the District Commission, it is an admitted fact that the respondents have booked the sites for a sale consideration of Rs.6,24,000/- in the project of the Opposite Party namely “Max Orchids Phase-III” by paying the advance amount.  Inspite of receipt of the advance amount, the Opposite Party had not at all developed and not formed the layout in their project.  It is an obligation on the part of the appellant to register the site as undertaken after receiving the balance consideration amount.  Further, no single piece of material produced by the appellant to show that the layout was formed or developed and ready for registration.  Therefore, the appellant fails to prove that there is no deficiency in service on their part.  As such, we found that there is no any merit in the appeal.  The Order passed by the District Commission is in accordance with Law.  No grounds made out to set aside the Order.  Hence, the following;

ORDER

The Appeal is dismissed.

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Commission for disbursement of the same to the complainant/s.

Keep the original order in Appeal No.1344/2019 and a copy of the same in connected cases.

Forward free copies to both parties.

     Sd/-                                                           Sd/-

MEMBER                                   JUDICIAL MEMBER

KCS*