BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 2^nd DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

PRESENT

MR.RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

MRS.SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI, MEMBER

APPEAL NOs.630/2019 TO 638/2019

M/s Maxworth Realty India

Limited, a Company Registered

Under Companies Act,

KMP House No.12/2,

Yamuna Bai Road,                                              …Appellant/s

Madhavnagar, Bangalore 560 001

Rep. by its Chairman &

Managing Director Mr. K.Kesava Kolar

(By Sri D.K.Kumar, Advocate)

Appellant is same in all the appeals.

-Verses-

1.      APPEAL NO.630/2019

Smt.Monalisa Pradhan,

W/o Saaroj Kumar Jena,

Aged about 30 years,

Residing at # SESHADRI HOUSE,

493-A, First C-Cross, 3^rd Main,

Maththikere, Bengaluru

2.      APPEAL NO.631/2019

Sri. Ashoke Sholapur,

          S/o Ashoke Shri Shailappa,

          Aged about 28 years,

          Residing at # AKKALLWADI Chawl,

          Balaji Nivas, Near GKW Layout,

          Malmaddi, 7^th Cross, Near Rly.Station

          DHARWAD

… Respondent/s

3.      APPEAL NO.632/2019

Sri.Pramod Dhaduti,

          S/o Jayappa Chaduti,

          Aged about 26 years,

          Residing at # 35, Balaji Nivas,

Near GKW Layout Bus stop,

Vijayanagar, Bengaluru-560 040

4.      APPEAL NO.633/2019

Sri.Prema Kumar Ganji,

          S/o Premanandam Ganji,

          Aged about 40 years,

          Residing at # Silicon Castel,

          Mynos Apartment, Flat No.13,

          III Floor, Near Gopalan International

          School, Basavanagar Road, Hoodi,

Bengaluru-560 048

5.      APPEAL NO.634/2019

Sri.Jerome A Gregory,

          S/o Sri.A.Gregory,

          Aged about 31 years,

          Residing at # 100, 9^th Main,

          IV Cross, Gokula post,

          Bengaluru-560 054

… Respondent/s

6.      APPEAL NO.635/2019

Mrs.Rehana Sultana,

D/o Sham Shau Haque,       

          Aged about 38 years,

          Residing at # 13,3^rd Floor,

Sai Balaji Enclave,

Near Manasa Bakery,

          Aiyyappa Nagar, KR Puram,

          Bengaluru-560 036

 7.     APPEAL NO.636/2019

Mrs.Nagavajyula Lakshmi,

W/o Sri.Sridhara         

          Aged about 65 years,

          Residing at # Flat No.106,

1^st Floor, Swarna Silicon Castle

Minos, Basavanna Nagara

Main Road, Hoodi,

          Bengaluru-560 048

8.      APPEAL NO.637/2019

Sri.Mahantesh R.Channappanavar,

S/o Rudrappa Channappanavar, 

          Aged about 37 years,

          Residing at # 54/1, First Main, 

          Nanjappa Layout, Audugodi,

          Bengaluru-560 048

9.      APPEAL NO.638/2019

1.      Sri.D.B.V.Avadhani,

                   S/o D.Venkatesh,

                   Aged about 38 years,

          2.      Master D.Mohit Kumar,

                   S/o D.B.V. Avadani,

                   Aged about 6 years,

… Respondent/s

          Both residing at # F 3116,

          Swaran Silicon Castle, Minos,

          Basavanna Nagar Road,

          Seetharampalya, Hoodi

          Bengaluru-560 048

(By Sri Chandra Naik.T, Advocate)

COMMON ORDER

BY MR. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER.

The appellant/Opposite Party has preferred these appeals being aggrieved by the order dated 12.10.2018 passed in CC.No.833/2016 and 30.01.2019 passed in CC.Nos.864/2018, 865/2018, 876/2018, 869/2018, 871/2018, 873/2018, 874/2018 and 877/2018 on the file of Bengaluru Urban 4^th Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore respectively. In these appeals, the appellant is the same and respondents are different and the matter in issue is also the same. Hence, these appeals are being disposed-off by a common order.

2. The brief facts of the complaints are hereunder;

It is the case of the complainants that, they believing the words of Opposite Party decided to purchase sites/plots of various dimension as per their requirements with an intention to have a new home in the layout formed by the Opposite Party under various names and style. Accordingly each of the complainants booked sites/plots and paid advance amount of Rs.1,62,000/-, Rs.1,46,000/-, Rs.1,46,000/-, Rs.2,02,496/-, Rs.2,37,946/-, Rs.1,75,000/-, Rs.2,39,995/-, Rs.1,46,000/- and Rs.2,08,980/- respectively towards purchase of sites/plots through cheque/cash/NEFT on different dates in favour of Opposite Party wherein the Opposite Party agreed to handover the possession of the schedule property within stipulated time.  The Opposite Party one or the other reason postponed the same.  Hence, the complainants issued a legal notice, inspite of receipt of notice, the Opposite Party have not refunded the amount and handed over the possession of the site.  Hence, these complaint.

3. After service of notice, the Opposite Party filed version and contended that the complaints are not maintainable; it is vexatious and frivolous in nature which is liable to be dismissed. The Opposite Party admits the receipt of amount of Rs.1,62,000/-, Rs.1,46,000/-, Rs.1,46,000/-, Rs.2,02,496/-, Rs.2,37,946/-, Rs.1,75,000/-, Rs.2,39,995/-, Rs.1,46,000/- and Rs.2,08,980/- respectively. Further contended that they have developed the lands, but the complainants were not ready to purchase the sites/plots as per the terms and conditions of the booking form.  The complainants themselves not coming forward to get register the Sale Deed by paying the balance sale consideration.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and prayed to dismiss the complaints.

4. After trial, the District Consumer Commission allowed the complaints and directed the Opposite Party to refund the above said amounts to the complainants 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, both parties have not submitted their arguments.

6. On perusal of the memorandum of appeals, certified copy of the order and documents produced before the District Commission, it is an admitted fact that respondents have booked sites/plots in the project of the appellant by paying an advance amount.  Inspite of receipt of the advance amounts, the appellant 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 appeals.  The order passed by the District Commission is in accordance with Law.  No grounds made out to set aside the order.  No interference is required.  Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed and we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

The Appeals Nos.630/2019 to 638/2019 is dismissed. No order as to cost.

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Commission for disbursement of the same to the complainants.

Keep the original order in Appeal No.630/2019 and a copy of the same in Appeal Nos.631/2019 to 638/2019.

Forward free copies to both parties.

MEMBER                                   JUDICIAL MEMBER

Jrk/