State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Narayan G.Bapat vs P.Raveendra on 28 August, 2024
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. First Appeal No. A/995/2020 ( Date of Filing : 22 Dec 2020 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 24/11/2020 in Case No. CC/1877/2019 of District Bangalore 2nd Additional) 1. Narayan G.Bapat S/o Late G.N.Bapat, Aged about 60 years, R/a No.B1, south Avenue, ITI Township, Doorvani Nagaar, Bengaluru-560016 Presently at: No.S-9, Prabahvathi Orchard-1, Meenakshi Layout, Kammasandra, Main road, electronic city, Bengaluru-560100 Karnataka ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. P.Raveendra S/o Late P.Subrahmanyam, Proprietor, M/s UR Builders & Developers, Having its office at: No.52, 3rd floor, 7th cross, 23rd A Main, J.P.Nagar, 2nd phase, Bengaluru-560078 Also at: P.Raveendra, M/s UR Castles Builders & Developers No.384, 15th cross, 5th Main, Sector 16, HSR layout, Bengaluru-560102 Karnataka 2. M.Ravichandran S/o Mariadoss, Aged about 52 years, R/a No.1/3, Mudukkumeendanapatti, Block-2, Pudur doraisamypuram, Kovilpatti, Tindigal, Tamilnadu. PIN-604001 Tamilnadu 3. K.N.Ashok Reddy S/o Nanji Reddy, Having its office at: M/s Accent Properties, No.209, 45th cross, 8th block, Jayanagar 8th block, Bengaluru-560082 Karnataka ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 28 Aug 2024 Final Order / Judgement 28.08.2024: ORDER
Delivered by Mr.K.B.Sangannanavar. Prl.DJ (R) Judicial Member.
01. This is an Appeal filed by complainant in C.C. No.1877/2019 on the file of IInd Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore, aggrieved by the order dated: 24.11.2020.
02. The parties to this Appeal will be referred to as their rank assigned to them by the commission below.
03. Commission examined the grounds of appeal, Impugned order, appeal papers.
04. Now the point that arises for consideration of this Commission would be:
"Whether the impugned order dated: 24.11.2020 passed in C.C. No.1877/2019 does call for any interference of this Commission for the grounds as set out in the Appeal Memo?"
05. The complainant in his consumer complaint has sought for refund of Rs.7,24,897/- which inclusive of the sale consideration of Rs.6,72,000/- paid in respect of site bearing No.389 formed in the layout "UR Castles" and he sought 18% interest per annum on such amount from the date of payment till realization. He has also sought compensation towards damages and cost of litigation.
06. OP No.1 is a builder. It is the case of the Complainant, OP Nos.1 & 2 have executed a registered sale deed dated: 21.09.2011 in his favour and in respect of the said property he has paid taxes. The property bears site No.389. The taxes are paid up to the financial year 2016-17 and when he tried to make payment of taxes for the year 2018-19 in the month of March-2018, the concerned authorities refused to receive the taxes on the ground that, the site formed by the Ops stood deleted from the released list prepared by the Anekal Planning Authority. In this regard he made representation to RERA on 01.09.2018 and he came to know that, site No.389 was sold to the complainant stood cancelled by the authority by an order dated: 27.04.2015. He also came to know that, the revised plan and revised list of sites released for sale only on the receipt of document on 02.07.2019. In such circumstances complainant had raised consumer complaint seeking relief to refund of Rs.7,24,897/-.
07. The District Commission on admission of the complaint, ordered notice against OP Nos.1 to 3, who having been served with notice, failed to participate in the complaint proceedings. In such circumstances, the DCDRC held an enquiry by receiving the affidavit evidence and 16 documents. It is found in affidavit evidence, reiterated contents of complaint and the District Commission on appreciation of the materials on record, in particular, in Para-15 held, complainant nowhere whispered the site bearing No.389 purchased by him is shown in the area reserved for item No.2 to 5 and held after filing of the complaint, he has not taken out help of either Commissioner or surveyor to ascertain that, the site purchased by him shown in the property reserved for item No.2 to 5 mentioned in Ex.P.2. In our view, first of all OP Nos.1 to 3, having been served with complaint notice have failed to participate in the complaint proceedings which in our view for the reasons best known to them. In other words have not denied either contents of complaint or affidavit evidence and documents, in particular contents of Ex.P.2. In such circumstances, dismissal of complaint is nothing but committing grave error by the DCDRC. In our view the facts put-forth by the complainant being supported by documents, suffice to accept to hold that, the site in question is not in existence was not at all considered by the District Commission, since, the site bearing No.389 sold in favour of complainant is already cancelled and the said site is shown in the area reserved for item Nos.2 to 5 and in such circumstances and for such simple dispute, driving complainant to approach Civil Court to seek cancellation of sale deed is nothing but denial of justice. At the cost of repetition, as the complainant had shown, competent authority had already shown, site purchased by complainant, from Ops is shown in the area reserved for Item No.2 to 5 and in such circumstances the sale deed dated: 21.09.2011 has to be held no relevance and has no legal sanctity. As already stated OP No.1 is a builder and Ops together involved in development activities to develop land bearing Sy. Nos.113/3, 113/5, 113/2, 113/4 and 63/2 at Nosenooru Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore, and when they offered second site bearing No.389 in Sy. No.139/2 measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 30 feet for sale consideration of Rs.6,72,000/-, which was paid by complainant through DD dated: 16.09.2011 and when such site is shown in the area reserved for item Nos.2 to 5 as mentioned in Ex.P.2, which could have been appreciated by the District Commission in favour of the complainant, yet the District Commission dismissed the complaint with a direction to approach Civil Court which in our view is contrary to facts and law is liable to be set-aside. Hence, we proceed to allow the Appeal, consequently set aside the order dated: 24.11.2020 passed in C.C. No.1877/2019 on the file of IInd Additional District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore, and as a result allowed the complaint in-part and directed Ops to refund Rs.7,24,897/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipts till realization and do pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards rendering deficiency in service and mental agony and Rs.50,000/- towards cost of litigation within 60 days failing which the amount so awarded shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of such default till realization.
08. Send copy of this order to the District Commission and the parties to the Appeal.
Sd/- Sd/- LADY MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER KNMP* [HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M] MEMBER