BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF JUNE 2023
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 91/2019
1. | M/s Maxworth Realty India Limited, Corporate Office, “KMP House”, No.12/2, Yamuna Bai Road, Madhavanagar, Bangalore 560 001, Rep. by its Manager. | ……Appellant/s |
2. | M/s Maxworth Realty India Ltd., Head Office No.22/2, Railway Parallel Road, Nehru Nagar, Bangalore 560 020, Rep. by its Managing Director Kesava.K. (By Sri D.K. Kumara) | |
V/s
Ms. T.S. Sahana, D/o T. Srinivasa Murthy, Aged about 28 years, No.750, 9th Main, 9th Block, Nagarabhavi, 2nd Stage, Bengaluru 72. (Served absent) | ..…Respondent/s |
ORDER ON ADMISSION
MR. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The appellant/Opposite Party has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.03.07.2017 passed in CC.No.1024/2016 on the file of Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru.
2. The brief facts of the complaints are hereunder;
It is the case of the complainants that he approached the Opposite Parties to purchase site in the layout formed by the Opposite Party namely “Max Orchards III” situated by the side of road leading to Bangalore International Airport. Accordingly, he purchased two sites bearing Nos.280 & 281 measuring 30x40 feet for a total sale consideration of Rs.15,60,000/- each and the complainant paid some amount of Rs.2,34,000/- which constitutes 15% of the total sale consideration and the Opposite Party promised that he would execute the Sale Agreement within 6 – 7 months. The Opposite Party also promised that in case of discontinuation of the above project, the amount will be refunded to the complainant within 20 working days from the first request for refund. But the Opposite Party grossly failed even till today complete the formation of the layout and to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the complainant. Then the complainant requested the Opposite Party to cancel the booking and refund the amount paid. Inspite of requests and correspondences, the Opposite Party failed to respond and refund the advance amount. Hence, he got issued the legal notice, but, Opposite Parties failed to respond to the same. Hence, the complainant.
3. After service of notice, the Opposite Party No.1 not appeared, hence, placed exparte. The Opposite Party No.2 appeared through counsel and filed version and contended that the complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act since she has purchased a site for commercial purpose. The complainant has booked two sites to make commercial benefit in future by reselling the same. As per the booking form the complainant has failed to pay 30% of the entire sale consideration amount of Rs.4,68,000/-, therefore, agreement of sale could not be executed. The complainant herself has committed breach of terms of the booking form and she has also not given any cancellation letter prior to filing of the complaint. Since the transaction is commercial in nature, the complaint cannot be entertained. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party to refund the amount paid by the complainant with interest along with compensation and costs.
5. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/ Opposite Party is in appeal. Inspite of sufficient opportunities provided, the appellant has not submitted their arguments.
6. 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 the respondent has booked two sites bearing Nos.280 to 281 measuring 30x40 for a total sale consideration amount of Rs.15,60,000/- each in the project of the appellants namely “Max Orchards - III” and paid some amount of Rs.2,34,000/-. It is also not in dispute that the appellants have promised the respondent that the project was commenced within 6-7 months from the date of booking of the site, but, they failed to even commence the formation of the layout even after stipulated period. Hence, the respondents requested to refund the amount paid by her. Per contra, the appellants submit that as per the terms and conditions of the booking form, within 20 days the respondents have to pay 30% of the sale consideration and execute the Sale Agreement in their favour. We noticed that as the respondent requested for refund of the amount paid as the appellants have not completed the formation of layout. There is no any material on record to believe that the appellants have completed the formation of the layout. Despite repeated requests, the appellants have not refunded the amount to the respondent. Therefore, the non-refund of the amount paid by the respondent clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. The District Commission after trial allowed the complaint and directed to refund the amount paid by the respondents with interest along with compensation and costs. We found that there is no illegality or irregularity in the Order passed by the District Commission. No interference is required. Hence, the following;
ORDER
The Appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Commission for disbursement of the same to the complainant/s.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
