Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/386/2019

Mr.Gopalkrishna.K.V, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Transcity Developers, - Opp.Party(s)

14 Jun 2019

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 18.02.2019

Disposed on: 14.06.2019

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027

 

 

CC.No.386/2019

DATED THIS THE 14^th JUNE OF 2019

 

 

PRESENT

 

 

 

 

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K., BAL, LLM, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, B.A., LLB, MEMBER

 

 

Complainant/s: -                           

Sri.Gopalkrishna.K.V

Aged about 70 Years,

No.222, Srinidhi,

2^nd A Main,

Kasturinagar,

Bengaluru-43.

 

Inperson

 

V/s

Opposite party/s:-    

 

M/s. Trancity Developers

No.32, 2^nd floor, 13^th Cross (Above Hotel Shanthi Sagar), Sadashivanagar,

Bengaluru-80.

Rep. by its Managing Partner Sri.Ravi.

 

Ex-parte

 

 

ORDER

 

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K., PRESIDENT

 

            This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite party (herein after called as OP), under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Complainant prays to direct the OP to refund the entire amount of Rs.1,47,000/- with interest at 24% p.a.; to pay damages, cost                                                      and to grant such other reliefs deem fit for which the Complainant is entitled to in the interest of justice and equity.

 

2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under:

The Complainant submits that, OP has formed the sites in the layout called ‘GCC Samruddhi’ situated at Choudasandra Village, Melur Gramapanchayat, Shidlaghatta Taluk.  Before visiting the sites, OP collected Rs.10,000/- as advance on 14.06.15 and showed vacant land with landmarks. The Complainant was offered site No.278 with 1200 sq.ft for Rs.4,20,000/-. As per the say of the OP, on 25.07.15, the Complainant paid Rs.1,47,000/- i.e. 35% of the sale consideration. The remaining amount to be paid at the time of registration. Timeline for the development of the layout is 2-3 years. The Complainant visited the OP office on 19.06.17, to check the development status of the layout. The Complainant was asked to visit after six months. The Complainant approached the OP through phone and also visited the office on 29.04.18. The Complainant further submits that, the site which was allocated to the Complainant in the layout was pending with land conversion from agricultural to commercial. And there were no signs of completing the development in next 3 years as well. The Complainant again visited the office on 03.11.18. The employee of the OP Mr.Ravi explained the fraudulent activities that the OP is not investing any money towards the development of any of their project instead only trying to get the sites registered by misleading the customers stating that it will take time for development where the actual land is not even converted for registrations. Hence, the Complainant submitted the request for cancellation of sale agreement and to return the money paid. OP accepted the said cancellation but no action was taken by him. Hence, the Complainant has approached this forum.

 

3. After service of the notice from the Office, the OP.1 did not appear before this forum and hence, they called out as absent and have been placed exparte.

 

4. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the Complainant has filed his affidavit reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint. The Complainant has produced the documents. We have heard the arguments and gone through the oral and documentary evidence scrupulously and posted the case for order.  

 

5. Based on the above materials, the following points arise for our consideration;  

 

 

1. Whether the Complainant has proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP, if so, whether he entitled for the relief sought for ?

 

2.  What order?

 

6. Our findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1:  In the affirmative

Point No.2:  As per the order below

 

REASONS

 

7. Point No.1: The Complainant has firmly stated on oath in his affidavit evidence that, the Complainant had paid advance amount of Rs.10,000/- on 14.06.15 for the site No.278 forming in the layout ‘GCC Samruddhi’ situated at Choudasandra Village, Melur Gramapanchayat, Shidlaghatta Taluk. Further on 25.07.15, the Complainant paid Rs.1,37,000/- to OP and the sale agreement was executed in favour of the Complainant. The Complainant submits that, OP had assured that the layout will be developed within 2 to 3 years. Hence, the Complainant visited the office on 19.06.17 to check the status of the development. The OP asked to visit after six months. After six months, the Complainant visited the OP office and also approached through telephone. OP till today had not converted the land. Hence, the Complainant seeking for refund of the paid amount. To substantiate his affidavit evidence, the Complainant has produced sale agreement dtd.25.07.15, receipts dtd.14.06.15 and dtd.25.07.15 for Rs.10,000/- and Rs.1,37,000/- respectively, letter dtd.07.01.19 seeking for refund. This evidence of the Complainant remained unchallenged. Even after filing of the complaint, the OP has remained absent though the notice served. If at all the OP has rebutted their claim, the same could have been considered. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence, the only alternative left is to accept the contention of the Complainant.    

 

8. Further on perusal of the sale agreement dtd.25.07.15, it is clear that the Complainant had paid total amount of Rs.1,47,000/- to the OP towards the purchase of the said site. Till today, OP has kept quiet and not made any efforts to take the approval from the District Town and Country Planning (DTCP). Hence, there is deficiency on the part of OP. Hence, it is just and proper to direct the OP to refund the paid amount of Rs.1,47,000/- along with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of periodical payment till the date of realization. Cost of litigation is fixed to Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly, we answered the point no.1 in the affirmative.

 

9. Point no.2: In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.

 

ORDER

 

The complaint filed by the Complainant is allowed.  

 

2. The OP is directed to refund the paid amount of Rs.1,47,000/- to the Complainant along with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of periodical payment till the date of realization.

 

3. The OP is further directed to pay cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant.

 

4. This order is to be complied by the OP within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.

 

          Supply free copy of this order to both parties. 

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this, the 14^th day of June 2019)

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(PRATHIBHA.R.K)  PRESIDENT

 

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Sri.K.V.Gopalkrishna, who being the Complainant was examined. 

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Annexure-1	Sale agreement dtd.25.07.15
Annexure-2	Receipts dtd.14.06.15, 25.07.15
Annexure-3	Cancellation of sale agreement dtd.05.11.18
Annexure-4	FIR dtd.25.11.18
Annexure-5	Notice dtd.07.01.19
Annexure-6	Track consignment
Annexure-7	Newspaper article
Annexure-8	Main sheet of the Brochure of GSS Samruddhi

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(PRATHIBHA.R.K)  PRESIDENT