BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF JUNE 2023
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 922/2021
M/s Maxworth Realty India Limited, A Company registered under Companies Act, Head its Office at KMP House, No.12/2, Yamuna Bai Road, Madhavanagar, Bangalore 560 001, Rep. by its Managing Director Sri Keshava, Kolar. (By Smt. B.M. Shobha) | ……Appellant/s |
V/s
1. | Mr. V. Manjunath, No.21, 4th ‘A’ Main, Hebbal, Bangalore 560 024. | ..…Respondent/s |
2. | Mr. V. Prasanna Kumar, No.81, Sobha Emerald Phase – 2, Jakkur, Bangalore 560 064. | |
ORDER ON ADMISSION
MR. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The appellant/Opposite Party has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.31.01.2020 passed in CC.No.1721/2015 on the file of 4th Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru.
2. The brief facts of the complaints are hereunder;
It is the case of the complainants that they approached the Opposite Party to purchase eight plots bearing Nos. 71 to 78 measuring 30x40 in the project known as “Max Meadows III” situated near Rajanakunte for a total sale consideration amount of Rs.10,80,000/- each. The complainant No.1 paid advance amount of Rs.19,44,000/- and the complainant No.2 paid advance amount of Rs.6,48,000/- totally the complainants have paid Rs.25,92,000/- in the year 2013. During June 2014, the complainants found out that the plots were already sold to some other customers by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party accepted the same and advised to avail plots in their other projects, but, the complainants were not interested to buy any plot and requested to refund the advance amount with interest. Inspite of several requests and follow-ups, the Opposite Party refunded certain amounts in installments and the balance amount of Rs.9,20,000/- was not paid. Hence, the complaint.
3. After service of notice, the Opposite Party appeared and filed objections and contended that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The Opposite Party admitted the booking of the sites and also receipt of the advance payment by the complainants. As per the booking form terms and conditions, within 20 days the complainants have to pay 30% of the total sale consideration and execute the sale agreement, but, the complainants failed to pay the same and breached the contract. The Opposite Party further contended that they will allot the sites and execute the sale agreement, if the complainants ready to pay the 30% of the sale consideration. Further contended that as per the booking form terms and conditions, refund of the booking amount will be done after 30 working days from the date of cancellation and cancellation without a valid reason 15% of booking amount will be deducted towards service and transport charges and if the complainant cancelled the booking, the Opposite Party will not pay any interest. As per the booking terms and conditions, the complainants have to give requisition to Opposite Party to cancel the booking, then from the date of cancellation, refund will be made in 30 working days. The complainants are not joint owners to file with single prayer, they have to file individual complaint. The Opposite Party is not making any delay in their projects, then the question of payment of damages or interest does not arise. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party to refund Rs.9,20,000/- with interest along with compensation and costs.
5. Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellant/ Opposite Party is in appeal. Heard advocate for appellant on admission.
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 eight plots bearing Nos.71 to 78 measuring 30x40 for a total sale consideration amount of Rs.10,80,000/- each in the project of the Opposite Party namely “Max Medows - III” by paying the advance amount of Rs.25,92,000/-. It is not in dispute that the Opposite Party sold the plot of the respondents to some other customers, the respondents requested to refund the booking amount paid by them. The appellant paid some amount and still due to pay Rs.9,20,000/- to the respondents. Per contra, the appellant submit that as per the terms and conditions of the booking form, within 20 days the respondents have to pay 30% of the sale consideration and execute the Sale Agreement in their favour. We noticed that as the respondents requested for refund of the booking amount, the appellant has refunded Rs.16,72,000/- and still due to pay Rs.9,20,000/- to the respondents. The non-refund of the said amount clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. The District Commission after trial allowed the complaint and directed to refund the said amount paid by the respondents with interest along with compensation and costs. We found that there is no illegality or irregularity in the Order passed by the District Commission. Hence, the appeal fails. 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.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
