BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF MARCH 2023
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 807/2022
1. | M/s Maxworth Realty India Limited, No.12/2, KMP House, Yamuna Bai Road, Madhavanagar, Bengaluru 560 001. | ……Appellant/s |
2. | Mr. K. Keshava, S/o Late Sri K. Muniyappa, R/at No.56/2, 1st ‘D’ Road, Mathikere Layout, Mathikere, Bengaluru 560 054. (By Sri K.V. Subramani) | |
V/s
Smt. Shyam Nair, S/o V.K. Gopalakrishna Nair, Aged about 44 years, R/at No.788, 5th Cross, 11th Main, 4th Block, HBR Layout, Bengaluru 560 043. (In person) | ..…Respondent/s |
ORDER
BY MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI, MEMBER
1. The appellants/Opposite Parties have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.11.01.2019 passed in CC.No.663/2018 on the file of Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore.
2. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder;
It is the case of the complainant that Opposite Party No.1 is the company represented by Opposite Party No.2 who is a builder and developer engaged in the activity of developing layouts and other real estate projects and marketing sites and lands etc. Enticing by the advertisement given by the Opposite Parties, the complainant applied for two sites measuring 30x40 feet in the project namely ‘Max Residency’ Phase-III by paying a booking amount of Rs.3,38,000/- and entered into an agreement dt 25.05.2013. As per clause-3 of the Agreement of Sale, the Opposite Parties did not execute the absolute sale deed within the stipulated period. The complainant waited for one year, but there was no improvement. Then the Opposite Party offered sites of odd dimension in another layout Max Residency – Phase –V. The Opposite Parties informed the complainant that the layout formation work would be taken up and completed within six months. Therefore, the complainant opted to buy site No.31, measuring 710 sq.ft. and Opposite Parties executed a sale deed in favour of the complainant for a total consideration of Rs.5,68,000/- receiving the balance amount of Rs.2,30,000/- on 15.12.2014. Even after a lapse of three years and four months from the execution of the Sale Deed, there was no formation of layout. Hence, the complaint.
3. After issuance of notice, the Opposite Party appeared through counsel and filed version. The Opposite Parties have already fully developed the layout and maintained about one year. Thereafter, it is the bounden duty of the complainant to maintain himself. Among other grounds, the Opposite Parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. After trial, the District Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Parties to complete the development work of the layout within six months from the date of Order along with costs.
5. Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellants/ Opposite Parties are in appeal. Heard the arguments.
6. Perused the appeal memo and certified copy of the Order passed by the District Commission, we noticed that it is not in dispute that the respondent has paid Rs.3,38,000/- as a booking amount for two numbers of 30x40 sites. It is also not in dispute that the appellants have informed to the respondent orally that due to some problems, the appellants have dropped ‘Max Orchid’ out of two projects and amount paid for it would be reckoned for sit in ‘Max Residency’, Phase-3 and both parties are entered into agreement of sale for the site measuring 30x40 on 15.12.2014. The allegation of the respondent is that after waiting one year, there was no improvement in the said project, hence, he opted to buy only one site No.31, measuring 710 sq.ft. Subsequently, the appellants have executed the Sale Deed in favour of the respondent for a total consideration of Rs.5,68,000/- by receiving the balance amount of Rs.2,30,000/- on 15.12.2014. However, after lapse of many years, the appellants have not developed the said layout as assured by them, hence, the respondent is unable to identify and to take up a possession of the site purchased by him till today. In the course of arguments, the respondent sought for refund of the sale consideration amount of the site along with litigation costs as there is no development in the layout. In contra, in the lower court and also in appeal memo, the appellants contended the same that the sale deed was executed in the year 2014 itself in favour of the respondent and respondent has taken possession on the same day of the site No.17 along with all development works as promised and all the development works was completed in the year 2012 only.
7. Perused the Order passed by the District Commission. The District Commission after trial and after discussion, allowed the first prayer of the respondent along with litigation costs. We also agree with the Order passed by the District Commission because the appellants have executed the Sale Deed dt.15.12.2014 in favour of the respondent in respect of site No.31 in ‘Max Residency’, Phase-5. Hence, in respect of alternative relief i.e. of buyback site does not come within the purview of this Commission. The prayer before the State Commission in appeal memo, the refund of sale consideration amount does not arise and if respondent has sought for refund, the respondent has to approach the Civil Court to cancel the Sale Deed and sought refund of consideration amount. With regard to the second relief, the District Commission has directed the appellant to complete the development work of the layout. To establish that the appellant has produced some photographs which were the same photographs produced before the District Commission and submitted that they have already finished the development works in 2012 only. However, the respondent has strongly disputed the photographs produced before the District Commission and this Commission also and alleged that the photographs are not belongs to the said layout. If the respondent has disputed the said photographs, it is the duty of the appellants to produce another evidence to know about the said layout. Moreover, in the original complaint, the respondent’s first prayer was that to direct the Opposite Parties/appellants to take up the development work of the layout immediately and completed it within six months and demarcate the sites therein so that he will be able to take physical possession of the site purchased by him as per the Sale Deed executed on 15.12.2014. Hence, as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the respondent is entitled only for the first prayer i.e. development works which are left out and not for refund of consideration amount paid by him towards the site as prayed before the State Commission. Hence, considering the facts and discussion made here, we are of the opinion that the Order passed by the District Commission is just and proper. 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.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
