Date of filing: 06.04.2021
Date of Disposal: 28.04.2023
BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU – 560 027.
DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF APRIL, 2023
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 281/2021
PRESENT:
SRI.RAJU K.S,
Sri Aditya,
S/o. Ashok Goudar,
Aged About 31 Years,
Occ: Consultant,
Resident of No.99,
“Savitru”, 2nd Cross, UCB Nagar,
DHARWAD-580 007.
Now residing at:
G-3, B Block, Himagiri Green Forest
Apartments, Aravind Layout,
J.P. Nagar, 7th Phase,
(Rep. by Sri.Chandrakanth R. Goulay, Advocate)
1) M/s. S.J.R Prime Corporation
Private Limited, Represented by
Its Managing Director, having office
At: SJR Primus, 7th Floor, 1,
Koramangala Industrial Estate,
Bangalore-560 095.
2) M/s. S.J.R Prime Corporation
Private Limited, Represented by
Its Project Manager,
SJR Primus, 7th Floor, 1,
Koramangala Industrial Estate,
Bangalore-560 095.
3) M/s. S.J.R Prime Corporation
Private Limited, Represented by
Its Customer Relation Manager,
SJR Primus, 7th Floor, 1,
Koramangala Industrial Estate,
Bangalore-560 095.
(OP-1 to 3 Notice returned un-served –
Steps not taken)
//JUDGEMENT//
BY SRI. RAJU K.S, MEMBER
01. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section-35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 seeking for a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.7,80,000/- (Rs.5,00,000/- towards cheque amount plus interest) with further interest and grant such other reliefs.
02. The case of the complainant is that, by induced the advertisements of opposite party with regard to the launch of new project called “May Fair Residence” in the month of July-2015 approached the opposite party to book pre-launch booking for one unit on 18.04.2015. The complainant booked a unit No. INGRAM 1-203 which is having 2 BHK with super built up area of 1260 Sq. Ft and agreed to pay Rs.4,450/- per sq. ft. Further the complainant has paid Rs.5,00,000/- on 21.04.2015 by way of cheque drawn on State Bank of India, Dharwad, and blocked the above said unit. The said cheque was encashed by the respondent and issued receipt with allotment letter.
03. Further the complainant was constantly enquired with one Sri. Prabhakar claims to be Project Manager of opposite party company, about progress of the project. After some time the complainant came to know that, the project has not been launched in time and customer service of the opposite party is very poor. For that he enquired with one Meenakshi claims to be Customer Relations Manager vide email dated: 20.04.2015. In-spite of continued contact with the said Manager by phone calls and mails there was no positive reply regarding the progress of the project.
04. Thereafter the complainant contacted one Sri. Guru Prasad, DJM of opposite party, who also failed to give the satisfactory answer with regard to progress in the construction. Further the opposite party has failed to provide the details of the project launched, permissions obtained from the BBMP and other authorities. Further the complainant continuously contacted the opposite party from April-2015 to January-2018. The opposite parties only gave the false assurance and failed to provide exact progress of the project. Hence on 18.11.2017 the complainant seek for refund of advance payment amount of Rs.5,00,000/- vide mail dated: 18.11.2017.
05. Initially the opposite parties agreed to repay the advance amount vide their email communication dated: 05.12.2017 and thereafter no response was given. From the act of the opposite party the complainant came to know that, the opposite parties are making fraud and misrepresentation and no chance of unit is handover to the complainant. Hence he sent finally legal notice dated: 30.04.2018 by seeking refund of advance amount with interest for Rs.7,50,000/-. By the act of the opposite party it was clear that, with the intention of cheating to the complainant as well as other people who wanted to buy the units. Thereby the opposite parties are liable under deficiency of service. Hence the complainant has filed this complaint and prayed as sought for.
06. The notice issued by this Commission to the opposite party is unserved due to addressee is not found. Since from 11.06.2021 till 19.04.2023 when this complaint is posted for orders, the complainant and his counsel not chosen to take necessary steps against opposite party and remained absent throughout the proceedings.
07. Based on pleadings and documents filed by the complainant the points that would arise for consideration are as under:-
(1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
(2) Whether the complainant is entitle for the
relief as sought ?
(3) What order ?
08. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:-
POINT NO.1 & 2: Are in the negative
POINT NO.3 : As per the final order for the following:-
REASONS
09. POINT NO.1 & 2:- To avoid the repetition of facts of the complaint we have discussed point No.1 & 2 together. The complainant had filed this complaint for the alleged deficiency of service by the opposite parties. The main allegation of the complainant is that, the opposite parties are failed to hand-over the possession of the unit as assured in their advertisement. The complainant has paid Rs.5,00,000/- on 21.04.2015 as advance amount for blocking of the unit in the project to be construct by the opposite parties. In-spite of receiving the advance amount the opposite parties have failed to hand over the possession of the unit as assured by them. Even the opposite parties failed to provide updates with regard to the progress of the construction. In-spite of repeated request and email correspondences till January-2018 the opposite parties failed to provide updates with regard to the construction. Hence there is no other way the complainant seeking for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest. For that he has issued a mail dated: 18.11.2017 and legal notice dated: 30.04.2018 to the opposite parties.
10. To substantiate this fact the complainant has not filed his affidavit evidence and documentary evidence as contemplated under Section 38(6) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Since from 11.06.2021 the complainant not choose to take necessary steps against the opposite parties. Neither the complainant nor his counsel appeared or failed to take necessary steps or failed to file his affidavit in the form of his evidence.
11. Section 38(9) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 contemplates that, the District Commission shall have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, while trying a suit in respect of receiving of evidence on affidavits. The complainant shall tender the sworn affidavit evidence by entering in to witness box. Same has not been followed by the complainant in the present complaint. The complainant had failed to prove the burden casted on him. In view of the above, the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as alleged. Accordingly we answer point No.1 & 2 in negative.
12. POINT NO.3:- As discussed supra, for the foregoing reasons we proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.
Applications pending, if any, stands disposed-off in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 28th Day of APRIL, 2023)
//ANNEXURE//
Witness examined for the complainant side:
Documents marked for the complainants side:
Witness examined for the opposite party side:
Documents marked for the Opposite Party side: