BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF JUNE 2023
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI: MEMBER
APPEAL NOs. 90/2019 & 92/2019
M/s Maxworth Realty India Limited, No.22/1, Railway Parallel Road, Near Shivananda Circle, Bangalore 560 020, Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director Mr. K. Kesava. (By Sri D.K. Kumar) Appellant is same in both the appeals. | ……Appellant/s |
V/s
APPEAL NO.90/2019
Sri M. Mahabala, S/o Manja Naik, Aged about Major, R/at Sri Benaka, Vakwady Road, Ganesh Nagara, Kumbashi 576 257, Kumbashi 576 257, Kundapura Taluk, Udupi District. Rep. by its GPA Holder, Sri K.C. NiranjanKumar, Aged about 40 years, R/at No.4, Venkateshwara Nilaya, 1st Main, Nanjarasappa Layout, Canara Bank Colony, Chandra Layout, Bangalore 560 072. (By Sri T.S. Prakash) | …Respondent/s |
APPEAL NO.92/2019
Sri K.C. Niranjan Kumar, S/o K. Cholappa, Aged about 41 years, R/at Sri Benaka, Vakwady Road, Ganesh Nagara, Kumbashi 576 257, Kundapura Taluk, Udupi District, And also residing at No.4, Venkateshwara Nilaya, 1st Main, Nanjarasappa Lyout, Canara Bank Colony, Chandra Layout, Bangalore 560 072. (By Sri T.S. Prakash) | …Respondent/s |
COMMON ORDER
BY MR. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The appellant/Opposite Party has preferred bot these appeals being aggrieved by the Order dt.13.02.2017 passed in CC.Nos. 1224/2016 & 1225/2016 on the file of Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore. To avoid repetition of work, both these appeals are being disposed of by this Common Order.
2. The brief facts of the complaints are hereunder;
It is the case of the complainants that enticing by the advertisement of the Opposite Party, the complainants were intended to purchase a two sites each and entered into a sale agreement with the Opposite Party in the year 2011 for a total sale consideration of Rs.11,52,000/- each and Rs.11,04,000/- each respectively. The complainants have paid booking amount to the Opposite Party. Inspite of repeated requests of the complainants, the Opposite Party on their own executed a Agreement of Sale in favour of each complainant and agreed to execute Sale Deed within six months from the date of the Sale Agreement. However, the Opposite Party failed to execute the registered Sale Deed in favour of the complainants by receiving the balance amount inspite of repeated requests. Therefore, the complainants have issued a legal notice to the Opposite Party, but, the Opposite Party failed respond to the said legal notice. Hence, the complaints.
3. Despite service of notice, the Opposite Party failed to appear before the District Commission, hence, placed exparte. After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaints by directing Opposite Party to execute the registered the Sale Deed in respect of the sites of the complainants by receiving the balance sale consideration amount within three months from the date of receipt of this Order along with compensation and costs.
4. Inspite of sufficient opportunities provided, the appellant has not addressed the arguments.
5. 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 each respondent have booked two sites each for a sale consideration of Rs.11,52,000/- each and Rs.11,04,000/- each respectively in the project of the Opposite Party by paying the advance amount. Inspite of receipt of the advance amount, the Opposite Party had not at all developed and not formed the layout in their project. It is an obligation on the part of the appellant to register the Sale Deed as undertaken after receiving the balance consideration amount in favour of the respondents. Further, no single piece of material produced by the appellant to show that the layout was formed or developed and ready for registration. Therefore, the appellant fails to prove that there is no deficiency in service on their part. As such, we found that there is no any merit in the appeal. The Order passed by the District Commission is in accordance with Law. No grounds made out to set aside the Order. No intereference is required. Hence, the following;
ORDER
The Appeals are dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Commission for disbursement of the same to the complainant/s.
Keep the original order in Appeal No.90/2019 and a copy of the same in Appeal No.92/2019.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
