Karnataka

StateCommission

A/1177/2016

Samrat Adhikari - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Maxworth Realty India Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sachin V R

08 Apr 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE

 

DATED THIS THE 08^TH DAY OF APRIL 2022

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH    : PRESIDENT

MR. K. B. SANGANNAVAR                                : JUDICIAL MEMBER

MRS. DIVYASHREE M.                                     : MEMBER

Appeal No. 1177/2016

 

Samrat Adhikari S/o. Sri Bijaja Kumar Adhikari Previously R/at No. 121 Satko Palar Trees Apts., Munekolla Marathalli Bengaluru 560037 Presently R/at Plot No.649/650 Flat No.503, Swarnapuri Apartment HMT Colony, 25th Street, Miyapur Hyderabad - 500049 (By Sri. Sachin V.R.) V/s

……Appellant

M/s. Maxworth Realty India Ltd. Having its Office at No.22/1 Railway Parallel Road Nehru Nagar, Bengaluru - 560020 Represented by 1. K. Kesava     Chairman and Managing Director       2. Sagar Gangaraju Husseramane     Director       3. Kesava Hemalatha     Director       4. Praveena Srinivas     Authorized Signatory and VP Finance       5. Aftab Khan Warsi      Deputy General Manager (Marketing)       6. Mathew Praveen Kumar     General Manager, Markeing       7. Rupesh Kumar     Deputy General Manager (By Sri. Kumar D.K.)

…Respondent

O R D E R

BY HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH, PRESIDENT

This is an appeal filed against the common order dated 29.10.2015 passed in C.C.No.1494/2014 on the file of III Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore.

2. The brief facts of the case are that complainant along with brother and sister booked three sites with OP for a total consideration of Rs.25,20,000/- and paid Rs.6,30,000/- as advance amount.  OPs expressed their inability in the performance of the contract, agreed to return the advance booking amount along with 12% interest p.a. as per letter of undertaking issued by the OP No.6 on 26.09.2011, but, they failed to do so.  Hence, the complaint.
3. Heard the counsel for appellant.  None represents respondent.  It appears on the ground that complainant received the advance booking amount without any protest and there is no relationship of ‘consumer’ and ‘service provider’ complaint came to be dismissed.
4. The counsel for appellant/complainant vehemently argued that the OPs as per agreement are liable to develop the land and execute sale deed in favour of complainant on or before September 2012, failing which as per their own undertaking dated 26.09.2011 the complainant is entitled for interest at the rate of 12% p.a. The complainant sought refund of advance amount paid towards booking of site with interest as OPs failed to allot site.  The contention of the counsel for appellant that OPs have utilised the hard earned money of the complainant and not fulfilling the contract has some force.    Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.  The matter is remanded to the District Forum for disposal afresh.
5. District Forum to dispose of the matter within three months after hearing both parties to the extent of this case.

         

MEMBER                   JUDICIAL MEMBER          PRESIDENT

 

CV*