State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Max Worth Realty India Ltd. vs Mahantesh.R.Channappanavar on 2 August, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. First Appeal No. A/631/2019 ( Date of Filing : 29 Mar 2019 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 30/01/2018 in Case No. CC/864/2018 of District Bangalore Urban) 1. M/s Max worth Realty India Ltd. No.12/2, KMP House Yamuna Bai road, Madhavanagar, Bangalore-560001 Rep. by its Chairman& Managing Director Kesava.Kolar. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Amit Ashok Solapur S/o Ashoke Shri Shailappa, Aged about 28 years, R/a Akkallawadi Chawl, Balaji Nivas, Near GKW Layout, Malmaddi, 7th cross, Near Railway station, Dharwad. ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/632/2019 ( Date of Filing : 29 Mar 2019 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 30/01/2019 in Case No. CC/865/2018 of District Bangalore Urban) 1. M/s Max worth Realty India Ltd. No.12/2, KMP House Yamuna Bai road, Madhavanagar, Bangalore-560001 Rep. by its Chairman& Managing Director Kesava.K. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Pramod Dhaduti S/o Jayappa Dhatuti, Aged about 26 years, R/a No.35, Balaji Nivas, Near GKW layout, Bus stop, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru-560040 ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/633/2019 ( Date of Filing : 29 Mar 2019 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 30/01/2019 in Case No. CC/876/2018 of District Bangalore Urban) 1. M/s Max worth Realty India Ltd. No.12/2, KMP House Yamuna Bai road, Madhavanagar, Bangalore-560001 Rep. by its Chairman& Managing Director Kesava.Kolar. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Prema Kumar Ganji S/o Premanandan Ganji, Aged about 40 years, r/a No.Silicon Castle, Mynos Apartment, Flat No.315, III floor, Near Gopalan International School, Basavnagar road, Hoodi, Bengaluru-560048 ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/634/2019 ( Date of Filing : 29 Mar 2019 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 30/01/2019 in Case No. CC/869/2018 of District Bangalore Urban) 1. M/s Max worth Realty India Ltd. No.12/2, KMP House Yamuna Bai road, Madhavanagar, Bangalore-560001 Rep. by its Chairman& Managing Director Kesava.Kolar. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Jerome A Gregory S/o A.Gregory, Aged about 31 years, R/a No.100, 9th Main, IV cross, Gokula Post, Bengaluru-560054 ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/635/2019 ( Date of Filing : 29 Mar 2019 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 30/01/2019 in Case No. CC/871/2018 of District Bangalore Urban) 1. M/s Max worth Realty India Ltd. No.12/2, KMP House Yamuna Bai road, Madhavanagar, Bangalore-560001 Rep. by its Chairman& Managing Director Kesava.K. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Smt.Rehana Sultana D/o Sham Shau Haque, Aged about 38 years, r/a No.13, 3rd floor, Sai Balaji Enclave, Near Manasa Bakery, Aiyyappa Nagar, K.R.Puram, Bengaluru-560036 ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/636/2019 ( Date of Filing : 29 Mar 2019 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 30/01/2019 in Case No. CC/873/2018 of District Bangalore Urban) 1. M/s Max worth Realty India Ltd. No.12/2, KMP House Yamuna Bai road, Madhavanagar, Bangalore-560001 Rep. by its Chairman& Managing Director Kesava.K. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Smt.Nagavajyula Lakshmi W/o Sridhara, Aged about 65 years, R/a flat No.106, 1st floor Swarna Silicon Castle Minos, Basavannanagar Main road, Hoodi, Bengaluru-560048 ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/637/2019 ( Date of Filing : 29 Mar 2019 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 30/01/2019 in Case No. CC/874/2018 of District Bangalore Urban) 1. M/s Max worth Realty India Ltd. No.12/2, KMP House Yamuna Bai road, Madhavanagar, Bangalore-560001 Rep. by its Chairman& Managing Director Kesava.Kolar. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Mahantesh.R.Channappanavar S/o Rudrappa Channappanavar, Aged about 37 years, R/a No.54/1, 1st Main, Nanjappa Layout, Audugodi, Bengaluru-560030 ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/638/2019 ( Date of Filing : 29 Mar 2019 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 30/01/2019 in Case No. CC/877/2018 of District Bangalore Urban) 1. M/s Max worth Realty India Ltd. No.12/2, KMP House Yamuna Bai road, Madhavanagar, Bangalore-560001 Rep. by its Chairman& Managing Director Kesava.Kolar. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. D.B.V.Avadhani S/o D.Venkatesh, Aged about 38 years, R/a F 3116, Swaransilicon Castles, Minos, Basavannanagar road, Seetharamapalya, Hoodi, Bengaluru-560048 ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 02 Aug 2023 Final Order / Judgement BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH) DATED THIS THE 2nd 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.630/2019Smt.Monalisa Pradhan, W/o Saaroj Kumar Jena, Aged about 30 years, Residing at # SESHADRI HOUSE, 493-A, First C-Cross, 3rd 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, 7th 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, 9th 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 # 13,3rd 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, 1st 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 4th 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/ [HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar] PRESIDING MEMBER
[HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi] MEMBER