State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Manjunath S.Navda vs Max Worth Reality India Ltd on 3 August, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. Complaint Case No. CC/134/2018 ( Date of Filing : 26 Mar 2018 ) 1. Manjunath S.Navda Aged about 39 years, S/o S.Shankaranarayana Navdva, R/a No.600, Barwood park, No.1534, Texas-78753, USA. Rep. by his father & GPA holder S.Shankaranarayana Navda, Aged about 69 years, S/o Late S.V.Navda, R/a No.125, 7th Main, Avalahally BDA layout Banashankari 3rd stage, Bangalore-560085 ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. Max Worth Reality India Ltd Corporate Office at: No.12/2, KMP house, Yamunabai road, Madhavanagar, Bangalore-560001 Rep. by its Authorised Signatory Mr.Somanatha.K.V. 2. Keshav.K. S/o Late K.Muniyappa,R/a No.56/2, 1st D road, Mathikere layout, Mathikere, Bangalore-560054 Somanatha.K.V., S/o Late Venkata Reddy,No.12/2, KMP House,Yamunabai road, Madhavanagar, Bangalore ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 03 Aug 2023 Final Order / Judgement BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH) DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF AUGUST 2023 PRESENT MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 134/2018 Mr. Manjunath .S. Navda, Aged about 39 years, S/o Sri S. Shankaranarayana Navda, Residing at No.600, Barwood Par, No.1534, Texas - 78753, USA, Represented by his father and GPA Holder Sri S. Shankaranarayana Navda, Aged about 69 years, S/o of Late S.V. Navda, Residing at No.125, 7th Main, Avalahally BDA Layout, Banashankari 3rd Stage, Bangalore 56 085. (By Sri S. Sreekantha, Advocate) ...... Complainant/s V/s 1. Max Worth Reality India Ltd., A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, Having its Corporate Office at No.12/2, KMP House, Yamunabai Road, Madhava Nagar, Bangalore 560 001, Represented by its Authorized Signatory Mr. K.V. Somanatha. (By M/s KS & Associates, Advocates) .... Opposite Party/s 2. Mr. K. Keshava, Aged about 43 years, S/o Late Sri K. Muniyappa, Residing at No.56/2, 1st 'D' Road, Mathikere Layout, Mathikere, Bangalore 560 054, Represented by his Special Power of Attorney Holder Mr. K.V. Somanatha, S/o Late Venkata Reddy, Aged about 34 years, No.12/2, KMP House, Yamunabhai Road, Madhava Nagar, Bangalore. (By Sri K.V. Subramani, Advocate) ORDER
MR. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. This is a complaint filed against the Opposite Party seeking direction to the Opposite Party to pay Rs.23,00,000/- as cost of the two plots with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of receipt of the amount, till payment. Further prayed to direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards incidental expenses, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. The facts leading to the complaint are as hereunder;
It is the case of the complainant that enticing by the sweet words of the Opposite Parties, the complainant agreed to purchase two residential sites bearing Nos.15 & 18 measuring 1200 sq.ft. in the project of the Opposite Party namely " Max Residency Phase - V " formed in Survey No.8/p9, Thindlu Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District for a sale consideration of Rs.10,80,000/- each. The Opposite Parties are the sole and absolute owner of the abovesaid immovable property converted from Agricultural to non-agricultural residential purpose. The complainant further submits that the Opposite Parties promised to provide all basic amenities like road, drainage, water and other facilities from BIAAPPA. The complainant paid Rs.4,00,000/- towards booking amount through cheque and the Opposite Party No.1 acknowledged the receipt of the same. Further alleged that the Opposite Parties have adjusted a sum of Rs.9,74,000/- through journal entries paid by the complainant from 09.03.2013 to 01.04.2014 as advance for two sites. Later the complainant paid the entire sale consideration amount in respect of two plots and the Opposite Parties have jointly executed two registered Sale Deeds in favour of the complainant. Inspite of receipt of entire sale consideration amount from the complainant, the Opposite Parties have not developed the layout, hence, the complainant issued a Demand Notice requesting to refund the entire amount with interest at 24% p.a. within 15 days from the date of receipt of the Demand Notice. Inspite of service of the notice, the Opposite Parties failed to reply nor comply the said notice. Left with no option, the complainant issued a legal notice on 24.01.2018 calling upon the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.23,00,000/- towards refund of the entire sale consideration amount along with other reliefs, but, the Opposite Parties inspite of receipt of the legal notice have not allotted the sites to the complainant. Hence, the complaint.
4. After service of notice, the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 appeared through counsel and filed a common version and contended that this complaint is not maintainable to entertain as barred by limitation. The complaint is vexatious and frivolous has not maintainable either in law or on facts and liable to be dismissed in lemine. The Opposite Parties admitted the purchase of two sites and receipt of the booking amount towards the same. Further contended that they have executed the Sale Deed and delivered possession of sites in favour of the complainant within the stipulated time with all basic amenities to the layout. The Opposite Parties denied other allegations made in the complaint and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. The complainant has filed their affidavit evidence and marked documents at Ex.C1 to C16. The Opposite Parties have not filed affidavit evidence and not marked any documents. Heard the arguments of complainant. Inspite of sufficient time granted, the Opposite Parties have not argued the matter.
6. On perusal, the following points will arise for our consideration;
(i) Whether the complainant proves the alleged deficiency of service on the part of the OPs?
(ii) What order? 7. The findings to the above points are; (i) Affirmative (ii) As per final order REASONS
8. On perusal of the pleadings, affidavit evidence and documents produced by the complainant, it is not in dispute that the complainant entered into an agreement for the purchase of two sites from the Opposite Parties which was proposed to be developed in "Max Resideny" and also paid an amount of Rs.23,00,000/- towards the same. After receipt of the entire sale consideration amount, it is not in dispute that the Opposite Parties have executed the absolute Sale Deed dt.21.04.2014, the same is produced before this Commission, but, the complainant alleges that after execution of the Sale Deed, the Opposite Parties have not handed over the possession, hence, prayed for refund of the entire amount paid towards the purchase of the said sites. The claim made by the complainant is not acceptable, because this Commission has no jurisdiction to discuss the Sale Deed and directed the Opposite Parties to refund the entire amount by declaring the Sale Deed as void. The said claim is purely civil in nature.
9. We noticed that the complainant had alleged that the Opposite Parties have not completed the development work and handed over the possession. To that extent, we restrict the Opposite Parties have rendered deficiency in service in not handing over the possession of the two sites. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Opposite Parties are entered into an agreement for sale of the sites after completion, handover the possession have failed to do so. It is a clear case of deficiency in service. Hence, the Opposite Parties are liable to give possession of the two sites as per the Sale Deed and also liable to pay compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for not complying the Agreement and Sale Deed. Hence, the following;
ORDER The complaint is hereby allowed with a cost of Rs.25,000/-.
The Opposite Parties are directed to give possession of the two sites to the complainant as per the Agreement and Sale Deed.
The Opposite Parties are further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant for not handed over the possession of the two sites as per the Agreement and Sale Deed.
The Opposite Parties are directed to comply the above said Order within 60 days from the date of this Order.
Forward free copies to both the parties.
Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER KCS* [HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi] MEMBER