BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
APPEAL No. 580/2019
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER
1. Trancity Developers,
Corporate office No.32,
2nd Floor, Bashyam Circle,
(Above hotel Shanthi Sagar)
Sadashivanagar, Bengaluru-560 080
... Appellant/s
Represented by its Managing
Director Dr.S.Ravi.
2. Dr.S.Ravi S/o Srinivasaiah,
Aged about 49 years,
Partner of M/s Trancity Developers,
Corporate office No.32,
2nd Floor, Bashyam Circle,
(Above hotel Shanthi Sagar)
Sadashivanagar, Bengaluru-560 080
(By Sri.Y.S.H.Reddy, Advocate)
-V/s-
Smt.V.Varalakshmi
W/o Manjunatha,
Aged about 35 years,
R/at No.325/B, 4th Cross, … Respondent/s
C-Block, Gayathinagar,
Bengaluru-560 021
(By Sri.M.N.Premanath, Advocate)
O R D E R
BY SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER
The Appeal No.580/2019 has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties being aggrieved by the order dated 20-2-2018 passed by the IV Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru and prays to set-aside the order and to dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-
The complainant and her husband wanted to construct their own house. Bonafidely believing the advertisement in the website, they approached the Opposite Parties and expressed their willingness to buy a plot in the said layout developed by the Opposite Parties. The complainant further submits that, the Opposite Parties gave a free inspection of the layout to them on 13.1.2013 and the complainant found that the formation of the layout had just began and roads were not formed and only plot numbers were given. When questioned, the Opposite Parties prevailed upon the complainant and her husband that the rest of the work will start soon, at any rate the layout will be completed within a short time frame of six months. The Pos lured and assured the complainant that they would provide round the clock security system, exclusive overhead tank, borewells for water supply, electricity with street lights, avenue plantation and asphalted tar roads, vide main roads, tree lined park, runway throughout the main road, jogging track, park and landscaped garden, fountains and water bodies underground box type drainage system and sewerage connection, children’s play area, and it is prevailed upon by them that the plots are ready for immediate registration. The complainant has agreed to buy the above plot bearing No.11, measuring an area of 1200 sq. ft. in the said layout formed in Sy.No.108/1, for the aforesaid consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- and the Opposite Parties represented by Opposite Party No.2 have executed an agreement of sale dated 31-1-2013. The entire sale consideration is received by the Opposite Parties on 8-9-2013 and they should have executed the sale deed on 9-9-2013 itself, but one or the other pretext they did not execute the sale deed. Hence, on 5-9-2014, the complainant issued a legal notice for which Opposite Parties neither replied nor refunded the money received from the complainant. The complainant further submits that on 28-2-2015, she and her husband visited the said layout, where the plot agreed to be sold to them is situated. They were really shocked to note even after the lapse of almost 2 years, the layout is totally abandoned by the Opposite Parties and it was in the same unfinished condition. Hence, on 28-3-2015, the complainant issued demand notice to refund the sum paid by him with interest. Even after receipt of the demand notice they have not taken steps to refund the amount as demanded. Hence on these grounds and other grounds prays for allowing the complaint.
3. On receipt of the notice, the Opposite Party No.3 did not appear before Forum, hence placed exparte. Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed version denying all the allegations made in the complaint. The Opposite Parties further submits that, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable as it is barred by time. The Opposite Parties further submits that, the claim of the complainant is based on the sale agreement on the ground of breach of contract. The duty, liability and effect of sale agreement which is alleged to be breach of contract between the parties are triable by the Civil Court not by this Forum. Hence, on these grounds and other grounds prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. After trial, the IV Additional Bangalore District Consumer Commission, Bangalore allow the complaint.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants/Opposite Parties preferred this appeal on various grounds.
6. Heard.
7. Perused the appeal memo, we noticed that, aggrieved by the order of the District Consumer Commission dated 20-2-2018, the appellants have preferred the appeal along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 354 days in filing the appeal. Subsequently, the respondent has filed detailed objections to the said application by way of written arguments and prays the same will be considered with respect to main appeal as well as interim application.
8. As per the office notice, we noticed that, there is 354 days delay in filing the appeal and appellants have filed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and keep upon the same, we have heard the arguments from both sides. Hence, before going to main, first we have to discuses on the delay application filed by the appellants.
9. Perused the application filed by the appellants along with affidavit, we noticed that, the appellants have submitted that, the deceased late V.N.Nandagopal who was managing partner of the 1st and 2nd appellant before the District Consumer Commission was looking after the complaint before the District Consumer Commission and the said V.N.Nandagopal passed away on 21-1-2018. The earlier advocate, who was appearing for the 1st appellant and V.N.Nandagopal before the District Consumer Commission also not informed about the impugned order to both of them. Moreover, after the death of V.N.Nandagopal, several disputes had arisen relating to the properties of the 1st appellant and the wife of the said V.N.Nandagopal has filed cases against the both appellants and appellants had to follow up the said cases. After thorough search and enquiry only in the second week of March, 2019, the appellant able to secure all the papers relating to the complaint before the District Consumer Commission from the earlier advocate and immediately thereafter, he has met his present advocate and given instructions to file the above said appeal. Hence, there is no willful delay on part of the appellants in not filing the appeal within the prescribed time. We have not satisfied with the reason narrated by the appellant in their affidavit, all the reasons are not sustainable in law. They have to file the appeal within 30 days as per Section 24 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, they have filed appeal after lapse of 354 days, it is huge delay. Moreover, the appellant has not produced any document supporting to his reasons, we cannot condone the huge delay without sufficient reason. The application has no merit. Moreover, in the complaint, this appellant in spite of the notice of District Consumer Commission failed to appear before the District Consumer Commission and placed exparte, it seems that, the appellant was intentionally dragging the matter. Hence, the application filed by the appellants to condone the delay of 354 days is liable to be dismissed hence, further discussion on merits is not necessary. Hence, the appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation. Therefore, we proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R
The appeal is hereby dismissed on delay. No order as to costs.
The impugned order dated 20-2-2018 passed by the IV Additional Bengaluru District Consumer Commission, Bengaluru in CC.No.1066/2015 is hereby confirmed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to pay the same to the complainant.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Commission.
Lady Member Judicial Member
