State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Jayaram K. Shetty vs Sujatha P.K. W/O. Shrinivas D.K. on 18 January, 2022
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. First Appeal No. A/357/2014 ( Date of Filing : 19 Mar 2014 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 31/01/2014 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/182/2011 of District Dakshina Kannada) 1. Dr. Jayaram K. Shetty S/o. Late Hirianna Shetty .R/near 1st Railway Bridge, Marnamikatta, Mangalore 2. Mrs. Vani J. Shetty, W/o.Dr.Jayaram K.Shetty Both are R/near 1st Railway Bridge, Marnamikatta, Mangalore . ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Sujatha P.K. W/o. Shrinivas D.K. R/at Flat No. 102, 1st Floor, Mangalore Arcade, 1st Railway Bridge, Marnamikatte, Mangalore 575001 2. Shrinivas U.K., S/o. Late U.N. Krishnamoorthy Rao Both are R/at Flat No. 102, 1st Floor, Mangalore Arcade, 1st Railway Bridge, Marnamikatte, Mangalore 575001 . ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 18 Jan 2022 Final Order / Judgement BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF JANUARY 2022 PRESENT MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER APPEAL No. 357/2014 1. Dr. Jayaram.K.Shetty, S/o Late Hirianna Shetty, Adult, ......Appellant/s 2. Mrs. Vani.J.Shetty, W/o Dr. Jayaram .K. Shetty, Adult, Both are residing Near 1st Railway Bridge, Marnamikatta, Mangalore. (By Sri Sanath Kumar Shetty) V/s 1. Mrs. K. Sujatha, Aged about 45 years, W/o Mr. D.K. Shrinivas, ...Respondent/s 2. Mr. U.K. Shrinivas, Aged about 52 years, S/o Late U.N. Krishna Moorthy Rao, Both are residing at Flat No.102, 1st Floor, Mangalore Arcade, 1st Railway Bridge, Marnamikatte, Mangalore 575 001. (By Sri Yashir Ali) ORDER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI, MEMBER
1. The appellants/Opposite Parties have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.31.01.2014 passed in CC.No.182/2011 on the file of Dakshina Kannada District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mangalore.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are hereunder;
It is the case of the complainants that they are entered into an agreement with the Opposite Party project "MANGALA ARCADE" for purchase of the flat bearing No.102 in 1st Floor for a sale consideration of Rs.12,00,000/- on 10.03.2008. At the time of purchase, the Opposite Parties agreed to complete the flat with common facilities within five months from the date of agreement and also agreed to provide amenities such as lift, car parking for payment, generator for common areas and apartment lighting with sound proof enclosure, compound wall around the properties and also construct the apartment by using all good quality materials. The complainants further alleged that the Opposite Parties failed to complete the construction as agreed upon. The complainant further alleged that he availed a loan from State Bank of Mysore, but the Opposite Party without completing the work of the apartment had executed a Sale Deed on 24.04.2009 and paid Rs.8,70,000/-, but they have not provided the facilities like CC TV, Solar water heating system, reticulated gas connection, other electric gadgets intercom facility and induced to pay additional amount for which the complainant also paid Rs.2,97,000/- and Rs.30,000/- by way of cheque. The complainant further paid Rs.1,77,000/- than the agreed amount towards the purchase of apartment which has been shown in the sale deed. It is further alleged that on 08.06.2009 the complainant occupied the apartment and found certain drawbacks in the construction and also violation of license issued by the City Corporation.
3. It is further stated that that as per the deed of declaration that has been amended on 09.01.02009 after agreement for sale is executed in favour of the complainant is illegal and Opposite Parties have retained undivided rightly and as such they are liable to contribute proportionate maintenance expenses as per deed of declaration, but, the Opposite Parties are not paying the same. The complainants stated that the license was expired on 20.03.2008, but, without renewal the Opposite Parties had constructed the building and the complainants also requested the Opposite Parties to set right the defects in the apartment, but, they have not done so far. Hence, the complaint.
4. Upon service of notice, the Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel and denied the allegations made by the complainant and stated that they have applied for approved license from the Mangalore City Corporation. The Opposite Parties further contended that they have undertaken to provide facilities contemplated under the deed of declaration to the complainant owing certain enforceable circumstances the Opposite Parties could not overcome the facilities as stands mentioned in the deed of declaration could not be provided to the complainant and it is denied that the Opposite Parties had promised the complainant that they would complete the construction within five months i.e. on or before 31.12.2008. The additional facilities the Opposite Parties assured to the complainants only with the condition that if they pay additional sum and all the allegations are specifically denied by the Opposite Parties and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaint.
6. Being aggrieved by the said Order, the appellants/ Opposite Parties are in appeal. Heard the arguments.
7. Perused the appeal memo, Order passed by the District Commission and materials on record, it is an admitted fact that the appellants are the absolute owner of the property and with an intention to construct the residential apartment and to sell the apartment to various customers had obtained the license dt.21.03.2006 from Mangalore City Corporation. It is also an admitted fact that the respondents have entered into an agreement for sale and purchased the residential flat bearing No.102 situated in 1st Floor along with car parking and undivided right in the aforesaid property for a sale consideration of Rs.12 lakhs. It is also an admitted fact that on 24.04.2009, the appellants have executed a sale deed and the complainant occupied the flat on 08.06.2009. The appellants are denied that they have not promised to the respondents to provide the additional facilities like CC TV, solar water heating system, reticulated gas connection etc. and also denied the extra payment made by the respondents of Rs.1,77,000/- and Rs.30,000/-. The main allegation of the respondents is that even after receiving the full sale consideration amount, the appellants have failed to handover the possession of the apartment as per the agreement dt.10.03.2008 by the end of August 2008 and also failed to provide amenities as per agreement. The another allegation of the respondent is that the Opposite Parties have obtained to construct the ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor, but as against to the license the appellants have constructed the basement, ground, first, second and third floor. Further the appellants have retained the entire right over the terrace with an intention to construct the building and deed of declaration was amended without the knowledge of the respondents. The District Commission after considering the facts, documents produced by the respondents and Commissioner's report held that the appellants have committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and directed the appellants to comply the following (1) The Opposite Party shall provide sound proof generator for common areas if not provided.
(2) The Opposite Party shall provide lift to the apartment building if not provided.
(3) The Opposite Party shall provide compound wall on all sides and children play area as per deed of declaration.
(4) The Opposite Party has form an association of the apartment and handover all the original documents along with statement of accounts and other relevant documents.
(5) The Opposite Party shall do some other works which are noted in the Commissioner's Report.
(6) The Opposite Party also shall refund Rs.1,77,000/- i.e. extra amount collected from the complainants.
(7) The Opposite Party shall obtain completion certificate and occupancy certificate from Mangalore City Corporation and till then the tax amount shall be borne by the Opposite Party.
We also agree with the Order passed by the District Commission because the respondents proved their allegations by producing documents before the District Commission and there is also Commission Report to support the contention of the respondents. Per contra, the Opposite Parties have denied the extra payment of Rs.1,77,000/- and Rs.30,000/- made by the respondents and also denied that they have never promised to the respondents to provide the additional facilities, but, the appellants have not produced any documents to prove their such contentions and also not disproved the Commissioner's Report. Hence, after considering the facts and discussion made here, we are of the opinion that the judgement passed by the District Commission is just and proper. No interference is required. Hence, the following;
ORDER The appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Commission for disbursement of the same to the complainant/s.
Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER KCS* [HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi] MEMBER