Karnataka

StateCommission

A/32/2023

M/s MAXWORTH REALTY INDIA LIMITED - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri, Babu D - Opp.Party(s)

Subramanya .K.V

02 Feb 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE

 

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

 

PRESENT

 

SRI. RAVI SHANKAR                         : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C. BAGEWADI              : MEMBER

 

Appeal No. 32/2023

 

M/s. Maxworth Realty India Limited ‘KMP House’@ 12/2 Yamuna Bai Road Madhavnagar, Bangalore 560 001 Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director Kesava K.   (By Sri. Subramani K.V.) V/s	….Appellants
Babu D. S/o. Dorai Swamy R/at No.52, KGF Main Road Deshihally, Bangarpete 563 114	..…Respondent

O R D E R

 

BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

OP preferred this appeal against the order dated 22.11.2019 passed in C.C.no.1324/2016 on the file of II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore.

2. The brief facts of the case are that complainant entered into an agreement with OP for purchase of site No.332, measuring 40 X 30 sq.ft. for a sale consideration of Rs.6.00 lakhs.  The complainant paid Rs.3.00 lakhs and agreed to pay Rs.3.00 lakhs in equated monthly instalments.  As per agreement the OP was to develop the sites within 36 months from the date of agreement and execute the registered sale deed in favour of complainant.  But, OP even after lapse of said period not even started the development works.  Hence, he got issued legal notices dated 04.06.2016 and 05.08.2016 which was returned undelivered.  Subsequently, filed the complaint.  The OP in its version pleaded that there was a delay in the project because of the conversion process and the OP is ready to give site to the complainant.
3. After trial District Commission allowed the complaint and directed OP to execute and register sale deed in favour of complainant in respect of schedule property or in the alternative to execute and register sale deed in respect of any other site of the same dimension in the project developed by OP or else to refund a sum of Rs.3.00 lakhs with interest @ 15% p.a. along with compensation of Rs.25,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/-.
4. Aggrieved by the order OP is in appeal.
5. Perused the appeal memo and order passed by the District Commission.  it is an admitted fact that the complainant has entered into agreement with OP for purchase of 40 X 30 sq.ft. site in the layout “ Max Orchids” developed by OP for a total consideration of Rs.6.00 lakhs.   Complainant has paid advance of Rs.3.00 lakhs and agreed to pay Rs.3.00 lakhs in equated monthly instalments.  It is alleged by the complainant that inspite of lapse of agreed period of 36 months OP has not even started development works. 
6.   On going through the materials placed before the District Commission, it was rightly appreciated the fact that complainant has paid the amount in the year 2013 and he has been unnecessarily made to wait without allotting a site for such a long period and made complainant to suffer.  After trial the District Commission allowed the complaint by giving alternate options to OP as stated above.  We consider the order passed by the District Commission is just and proper.  It is obligation on the part of the OP to execute and register sale deed as agreed under the agreement or to refund the amount with interest. The reasons assigned by the District Forum are in accordance with the materials placed before it.  There is no any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order.   No interference required.  As such appeal is dismissed.
7. The amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for disbursement to complainant.

 

MEMBER                                   JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

CV*