State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Rekha Kudlur vs M/S Esveegee Reality Gujarat Pvt. Ltd. on 5 December, 2025
1 sc/29/cc/22O120L6
Date of filing: 17.09.2016
Date of Disposal: 05,12.2025
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMR DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION. BENGALURU
(PRINCIPAL BENCH)
A th
AY E R2
coRAM: HoN'BLE Mr. JUSTTCE T.c. SHTVASHANKARE GowDA - PRESTDENT
and
HON,BLE MTs. DIVYASHREE M - LADY MEMBER
sct29tcc/22tJt2(J16 BETWEEN:
Rekha Kudlur W/o Nuggihalli Narendra Aged about 43 years R/o No.368214-40 Taralabalu badavane, Davanagere-577005.
Rep. by her Power of Attorney Holder Vinay,B.S S/o Shadaksharappa. B,C Aged about 32 years R/o 1900/8, 21, Bhusiri Nilaya C.B.Road, GM Extension, Holalkere-577526. ......... Complainant/s (By Sri.K.S.Shivakumara, Advocate) AND:
1. ESVEEGEE Reality Gujarat pvt., Ltd., B.201, Sumany Apartments Behind 'St Xaviers School' Navarangpura, KSCDRC (PB) 2 sc/29/CC/220/2016 Ahmedabad-380009.
Gujarath Rep.by its Authorized Signatory Vijaykumar Durgaprasad Gupta (OP.1 - Absent)
2. ISHYA properties Laughing Waters No.65, 12th main road, White Field road, Ramagondanahalli, Benga luru-560066.
Rep.by its Authorized Signatory Himanshu Gupta
3. R.Girish No.14, 1.t floor, Samruddi Grace Apartments, 35, Viviani Road, Richards park, Bengaluru-27........... Opposite party/s (OPs.1 & 2 By Sri.Guruswamy.K.S, Advocate) D (PER: HON,BLE Mr. JUSTICE T.c.
SHMSHANKARE GOWDA, ,RESIDENT) This compraint is fired u/s.tl of consumer protection Act, 1986 (in short Cp Act) shall be read as filed U/s.12 of Cp Act, 1996 seeking direction against Opposite Party.l to 3 (in short Ops):
(a) To refund total consideration of Rs.49,91,495/_ and registration charges of KSCDRC (PB) 3 sc/29/cc/22o/2016 Rs.4,41,540/- with interest at24o/o p.a. from the date of payment till the date of deposit.
(b) To pay Rs.20 lakhs as compensation and lltigation cost.
(c) Pass such further order as this Commission deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The Brief facts of the case are that: Op.1 is a registered company under the Companies Act, 1956 and it is dealing with real estate by forming layouts, development of residential of townships in different parts of the country. OP,2 is local party in Karnataka for the development of the township. Op.3 is partner of Op.2.
OP.1 on 08.06.2008 issued advertisement in Business Line news paper that they have started township at Doddahalli village, Jayapura hobli, Mysuru taluk (in short layout). After coming to know the said project, the Complainant has paid a sum of Rs.15,65,445/-, Rs.13,82,780/- and Rs.L9,43,270l- towards site no.22, 23, 43 respectively. OPs.2 & 3 have executed the sale deed in favour of Complalnant on behalf of Op.1 on 25.04.2071. After registration of the said sites, the @/ KSCDRC (PB) 4 sc/29/CCl220/2016 Complainant came to know that only site no.23 was released by MUDA and remaining site no.22 & 43 was not released. Since MUDA has not released the sites, khatas are not made. Ops have not developed the sites and not provided amenities. project was not completed in terms of advertisement. Hence pleading deficiency in service, the Complainant filed this complaint.
3. Op.1 is served _ remained absent. Ops.2 &3 have filed their version denying the allegations made in the complaint. It is their contention that, they have deposited the payment made by the Complainant towards the sites. Khata was not done for two sites i.e.22 & 43 since there was Government ban.
But, since site no.23 was released by MUDA, khatha certificate was issued. However, the Complainant has not put any construction in the site released by MUDA.
Basic amenities are already provlded to the layout.
Unless 78 to 80 houses are built in the layout, other amenities cannot be provided. They are ready to construct the club house after 78 to g0 houses are built up. There is no deficiency in service on their part. Since sale deed is KSCDRC (PB) 5 sc/29/ccl22o/2016 already executed for three sites, Ops are not liable to refund any amount and sought for dismissal of the complaint.
4. GPA hotder of the Complainant has fited affidavit evidence as CW-1 and marked 4 documents as Ex-C1 to C4 and produced other 5 documents which are not marked. On behalf of Ops.2 & 3, Op.3 has filed affidavit evidence as RW-1 and marked 13 documents as Ex-R1 to R13. On behalf of both sides, written arguments is filed. We have further heard the Learned Counsels for both sides.
5. It is the contention of the Learned Counsel for Complainant and also his submission in written arguments that inspite of site no.22 & 43 has not been released by MUDA, OPs have executed the registered sale deed suppressing the said fact. Ops have committed breach of contract and deficiency in service. Unless sites are released, khatha could not be made. Ops have promised several developments such as amenities like road, electricity, water, club house, but the same are not KSCDRC (PB) 6 sc/29lcc/220/2016 provided as agreed by them. Therefore, the Complainant being sitting in USA made to suffer for having invested a sum of Rs.48,91,495/- towards three sites which are still lied undeveloped. Hence, sought for order against Ops to take back the sites and refund the amount.
6. per contra, it is the contention of Learned Counsel for Ops.2 & 3 and also his submission in written arguments that, three sites namely site nos.22, 23 & 43 was registered in the comprainant's name.
out of which, MUDA has released only site no.23 and hence khatha certificate was done to the said site.
A sum of Rs.7,30,706l- was already paid to the Complainant as compensation. But even after getting khatha to the site no.23, Complainant has not put any construction. Amenities will be provided and club house will be constructed if 78 to g0 houses are built in the layout.
Investment made by the Comprainant is for commerciar purpose, therefore, complaint is not maintainable.
KSCDRC (PB) 7 sc/2s/cc/22o12076 7 We gave our anxious consideration to the arguments addressed by both the counsels. perused the materials on record.
8. Now, the points that arise for our consideration a re :
(i) Whether the OPs have committed deficiency in service ?
(ii) Whether the Complainant is entitle to the relief sought for ?
Point (i):
9. There is no dispute that, Op.1 is a builder and OPs.2 & 3 are local representatives of Op.1 at Mysuru who are authorized to develop the layout, wherein 107 sites are formed as per R3/MUDA approved plan for proposed residential layout. Out of which, the Complainant has purchased site no.22, 23 & 43 by paying Rs.15,65,445l-, Rs.13,82,780/- and Rs.t9,43,270l- respectively. Sale deeds/Ex-C1 to C3 has already been executed in the Complainant's favour by OP.2 on behalf of OP.1.
KSCDRC (PB) B sc/29/CCl220/2016 10' The disputes are regarding no amenities are provided by ops. In this regard, the main contention of OPs that amenities and club house will provided only after construction of 70 to g0 houses in the layout.
Photographs of the layout are made available as per Ex_ R11 & R12. Sale deeds were executed in the year 2011 and now we are in 2025.It has been 14 years since the sale deed have been executed. On perusal of photographs, it is seen only two houses are built therein. Hence we are not persuaded to accept the arguments addressed on behalf of Ops that if 70 to g0 houses are built in the layout, they would provide agreed amenities.
It is interesting to note that, the Complainant is NRI. Even after 14 years of purchase of the sites, particularly site no.23 which was released by MUDA, no construction was made. When promise was made by the Ops to provide all the amenities, photographs itself shows that except mud road and single electrical pole nothing is provided in the layout. Hence, the buyers have not come forward to build any house for residential purpose in the said layout. Even after 14 years, there is no any KSCDRC (PB) 9 sc/29/ccl22ol20t6 development in the layout. It seems, nothing would going to develop even after 25 years.
11. On careful perusal of Ex-C1 to C3lsale deeds, several promises have been made regarding providing of facilities. But there is no materials to show as to why no facilities have been provided till date. There is no explanation from Ops that as to why they have not get release the sites from MUDA. Unless the sites are released, no khatas are made and basic amenities such as road, water, electricity, drainage are not available. Such being the fact, how the Complainant can build the house in sites which are under the control of MUDA. In such view of the matter, we are not satisfied with the contention taken by Ops. When the Ops have taken valuable consideration from the buyers, they are bound to provide all the facilities. Unless sites are not released by MUDA, it will not create the title to the Complainant.
As such, OPs cannot force the Complainant to hold the said sites. The contention of Ops that 3 sites were purchased for commercial purpose. As on today, the layout is not developed for residential purpose. No KSCDRC (PB) G!--
10scl29/CC/22O/2016 buyers or takers for the sites. Complainant is a NRI. We are not persuaded to accept the said contention. In such view of the matter, we are satisfied to hold there is deficiency in service on the part of Ops, Accordingly we answer point (i).
Point (ii):
12. It is undisputed that, site no.23 was released by MUDA. Sale deed also executed. Only amenities are not provided. Hence, the Complainant can insist Ops for refund of the consideration of Rs.35,0g,715l_ (Rs.15,65,445/- + Rs.7g,43,270l_) paid towards other two sites i.e. Site no.22 & 43 which are still under the control of MUDA.
13. It is undisputed that, promised amentias and club house facilities are not available in the layout.
Therefore, Ops without developing the layout attracted the buyers and made them to invest their hard earned money. Even after 14 years of taken up the layout, nothing is developed in order to built residential houses.
This kind of attitude of Ops is required be handle in such KSCDRC (PB) 11 sc/29/ccl22O12016 a manner as to make them to pay an adequate compensation to the buyers apart from refund the principal amount. As such, the Complainant can claim refund of the consideration paid towards site no.22 and 43 along with interest and compensation.
L4. As regarding claiming interest at 24o/o p.a. is concerned, the same cannot be considered as the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions held that there shall be standard and uniformity in awarding the interest. Accordingly, it is just and proper to award interest at 9o/o p.a on the conslderation paid by the Complainant. As regarding compensation is concerned, it is just and proper to award Rs.10 lakhs for not providing amenities. Accordingly we answer point (ii).
15. In view of our findings on point (i) & (ii), the complaint is deserves consideration in part. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDERS
(i) The complaint is allowed in part.
(ii) OPs.l to 3 are directed to refund 35,08,7L5/- along with interest at KSCDRC (PB) 12 sc/29lccl220/2016 9o/o p.a. from the date of payment till the date of deposit.
(iii)OPs are directed to pay Rs.lO lakhs as compensation and Rs.l lakh towards litigation cost.
(iv)Suppty free copy of this Order to both the parties.
(JUSTTcE T.G.SHr HANKARE GOWDA ) PR ESIDENT
(r) o (DI SH EM) t-ADY MEMBER *NS* KSCDRC (PB) 13 sc/29/ccl22Ol2ot6 ANNEXURES
01. wit esses e amined on beha If of ComDlaina nt/s:-
CW.1 Vi nay.B.S, GPA holder of the Complainant.
02. Doc ments m arked on behalf of Comolaina tlst-
Ex-C1 Copy of Sale deed dtd.23.04.2Ot7 Ex-C2 Copy of Sale deed dtd.23.04.2011 Ex-C3 Copy of Sale deed dtd.23.04.20L1 Ex-C4 Copy of legal notice dtd.08.06.2016 with original postal acknowledgement Docu ment s D roduc ed on eha lf of Comolain ant/s:-
Copy of paper advertisement in the Deccan Doc. 1 Herald dtd.03.05.2008, Bengaluru edition Doc.2 Copy of list of amenities promised Doc.3 Copy of email correspondence dtd.18.07.2016 Doc.4 copy of payment receipts Rs.7,t4,ooo/-, Rs.7 t4 000/- Rs.39,700/-, Doc.5 Original Power of Attorney dtd.05.08.2016 Witnes se exa mined on h ehalf of o P s
03.
RW-1 R.Girish, the OP.3
04. Documents produced on behalf of Opls Ex-R1 & Copy of notarized copy of Official Reminders by R2 Deputy Com m issioner, l'4ysu ru dtd. 09.04.20 10 Ex-R3 Copy of MUDA proposed residential layout Copy of Deed of Relinquishment Ex-R4 dtd.29.03.2011 Copy of approval of residential design map- Ex-R5 MUDA dtd.07.04.20t1 Ex-R6 Copy of Sale deed of site no.22 dtd.23.04.2011 KSCDRC (PB) 74 sc/29/CC/220/20L6 Ex-R7 Copy of Sale deed of site no.23 dtd.23.04.
2077Ex-R8 Co p Y o f S a e d e d of S te n o 4 3 d td 2 3 0 4 2 0 11 Ex-R9 Copy of release order by the MUDA addressed to ISHYA properties dtd.04. 10.201 1 Ex-R10 !90V o1Ledger accounr of ISHyA properties 01.04.2011 to 31.03.201 2 Ex-R11 of Photographs oF the site layout with to 13 lopy CDs (JUSTTCE T.c .SHTvASHANKARE GOWDA) PRESIDENT 5 tLw (DI VY ASHREE M) LADY I\"EMBER *NS* KSCDRC (PB)