State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Radiant Reshan Owner'S Association vs M/S Radiant Praja Priya Developers on 23 June, 2022
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. Complaint Case No. CC/54/2018 ( Date of Filing : 05 Feb 2018 ) 1. Radiant Reshan Owner's Association Radiant Reshan Apartments, survey No.54/3A,Yelenahalli village, Begur hobli,Blore68 Rep. by its Duly Authorised Members: 1.H.Dhanpal ShettyAged62,S/oLateT.Vittalshetty,Flat No.415,Radiant Reshan,Yelenhalli,Akshayanagar, Blore68 2.K.Narayan Shetty, Aged 65,S/oLateS.Mahabalashetty,FlatNo.215,Blore68. ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. M/s Radiant Praja Priya Developers By its Partner, Sri M.Raghavendra Reddy, Director, Radiant Structures Pvt. Ltd., No.590, 14th Cross, J.P.Nagar, 1st phase, Bangalore-560078 2. C.Satheesha S/o Chandrappa, R/a Villa No.38/39, Laxmi Venkatesh Nilaya, MTB group, Radiant Silver Oake, Yelenhalli, Bangalore-560068 ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 23 Jun 2022 Final Order / Judgement BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE (ADDL. BENCH) DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF JUNE 2022 PRESENT MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 54/2018 Radiant Reshan Owners' Association, (A registered society under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960), Radiant Reshan Apartments, Survey No.54/3A, Yelenahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore 560 008. Represented by its duly authorized member: 1. Sri H. Dhanpal Shetty, Aged about 62 years, S/o Late T. Vittal Shetty, Flat No.415, 'Radiant Reshan', Yelenhalli, Akshayanagar, Bangalore 560 068. 2. Sri K. Narayan Shetty, Aged about 65 years, S/o Late S. Mahabla Shetty, Flat No.215, 'Radiant Reshan', Yelenhalli, Akshayanagar, Bangalore 560 068. (By Sri S. Vittal Shetty) ....... Complainant/s V/s 1. M/s Radiant Praja Priya Developers, By its Partner Sri M. Raghavendra Reddy, Director, Radiant Structures Pvt. Ltd., No.590, 14th Cross, J.P. Nagar 1st Phase, Bangalore 560 078. (By Sri B.S. Radanandan) .... Opposite Party/ies 2. Sri C. Satheesha, S/o Sri Chandrappa, R/at Villa No.38/39, Laxmi Venkatesh Nilaya, MTB Group, Radiant Silver Oake, Yelenahalli, Bangalore 560 068. (Placed exparte) ORDER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI, MEMBER
1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party to pay Rs.29,32,000/- demanded by the BBMP and arrange for getting Occupancy Certificate along with compensation and costs.
2. The averments in the complaint are as hereunder;
It is the case of the complainant that the complainant association is a registered association of the apartment namely 'Radiant Reshan' the building was constructed by the Opposite Party No.1. According to the terms of the Joint Development Agreement, the Opposite Parties have shared their share of apartments. Some of the owners of the apartments who are the members of complainant herein have purchased the apartments by entering in to agreements to sale and getting the sale deed executed from the first of the Opposite Party and the remaining apartments owners have similarly entered into agreements to sale and got executed sale deed from the second Opposite Party. As per the terms of Joint Development Agreement, the Opposite Party No.1 was required to arrange at its cost Occupancy Certificate for the buildings Radiant Reshan covering all the apartments from BBMP and based on it Khata for each of the purchasers of the apartments. Inspite of the said obligation on his part, the Opposite Party No.1 has also collected Rs.25,000/- from each of the apartment owners for the purpose of meeting the amount, the total of which is about Rs.25 lakhs, considering some apartments are retained by the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2. The complainant further submitted that the BBMP officials also made an inspection of the building for the purpose of the issuing Occupancy Certificate and also issued demand notice requiring the Opposite Party No.1 to deposit a sum of Rs.29,32,000/-. However, the Opposite Party No.1 even though was required to pay the amount demanded had so far no paid the amount to BBMP and as a result they have so far no issued the Occupancy Certificate and further khata certificates.
3. The complainants further submitted that they have repeatedly requested the Opposite Parties to pay the amount to BBMP demanded by them and arrange to get the Occupancy Certificate. However, they have failed to respond to the request. Therefore, a legal notice was issued to them demanding to arrange the money to get Occupancy Certificate. The Opposite Party No.1 gave reply to the notice admitting that he is required to arrange for the Occupancy Certificate, however, making yet another false assurance that he will arrange the Occupancy Certificate as early as possible. The Opposite Party has been keep making these false assurances for last several months without any action in this regard. The complainants have no hopes that he will arrange for the Occupancy Certificate in the near future. Hence, the complaint.
4. After service of notice, the Opposite Party No.1 appeared through counsel and filed version. The Opposite Party No.1 admitted most of the allegations of the complainant, but, denied that he had collected a sum of Rs.25,000/- from each of the apartment owners for the purpose of obtaining the Occupancy Certificate to the apartments. Further contended that the Occupancy Certificate is to be obtained from the BBMP and the Opposite Party No.1 has already completed the construction in pursuance of the plan sanction and the BBMP vide order of the Commissioner had also approved the application for grant of Occupancy Certificate vide endorsement dt.08.06.2017, but, issue of the certificate is pending by BBMP, since there is procedure to be complied with regard to payment of certain amount demanded in the said endorsement. However, due to the crunch in the real estate business, there is a financial crisis to arrange money and to pay the same. However, the Opposite Party No.1 is making all arrangements to see that the Occupancy Certificate is obtained and the same would be handed over with the association as early as possible.
5. Inspite of service of notice to Opposite Party No.2 through paper publication, the Opposite Party No.2 not appeared, hence, placed exparte.
6. Complainant filed affidavit evidence and marked documents at Ex.C1 to C13. The Opposite Party has not filed affidavit evidence and also not marked any documents. Heard the arguments of advocate for complainant. Inspite of sufficient opportunity provided, the Opposite Party No.1 not submitted their arguments.
7. On perusal, the following points will arise for our consideration;
(i) Whether the complaint is deserves to be allowed? (ii) What order? 8. The findings to the above points are; (i) Affirmative (ii) As per final order REASONS
9. Perused the contents of the complaint, objections of the Opposite Party No.1, affidavit evidence and documents produced by the complainant, we noticed that the complainant M/s Radiant Reshan Owner's Association is registered under Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 having Registration No. INR - S399 - 2014 - 15 and with PAN No. AACAR50000N. The members of the association in its general meeting held on 21.01.2018 authorized Sri H. Dhanpal Shetty and Sri K.Narayan Shetty to represent before this Commission against the Opposite Parties. Further, the members of the complainant association numbering 90 have purchased apartments in the building 'Radiant Reshan' constructed in Survey No.54/3A situated at Yelenahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore. Further, as per Joint Development Agreement, the apartment was constructed and developed by the Opposite Party No.1 in the land of Opposite Party No.2. Subsequently, the complainant association members executed the Sale Deed from Opposite Parties. Further, as per Joint Development Agreement, the op No.1 was required to arrange at its cost, Occupation Certificate for the apartment owners from BBMP and Khatha there is no any dispute. The Opposite Party No.1 also admitted the BBMP officials also made an inspection of the building for issuance of the Occupancy Certificate and demanded to deposit a sum of Rs.29,32,000/-. However, the Opposite Party No.1 so far not deposited such amount to BBMP to that reason, the BBMP not issued Occupancy Certificate and Khatha Certificate. The Opposite Party No.1 also admitted that the complainant's association issued legal notice to them demanding arrange to get Occupancy Certificate and Opposite Party No.1 replied the same. The Opposite Party No.1 contended that he has already completed the construction and BBMP vide order of Commissioner has also approved the application vide letter dt.08.06.2017, but, it is the pending since there is procedure to be complied regarding payment of amount. However, there is crunch in realistic business, there is financial crisis to arrange money to deposit in BBMP. The Opposite Party No.1 is trying to make arrangements for the money to get Occupancy Certificate and the same would be handed to the complainant's association as early as possible.
10. Perused the documents produced by the complainant. It is evident that each of the owner of the apartment has paid Rs.25,000/- to the Opposite Party No.1 as Occupancy Certificate charges. Hence, the contention of the Opposite Party that he has not collected Rs.25,000/- as Occupancy Cetificate charges from each of the apartment owners is unbelievable. Moreover, the Opposite Party No.1 not filed his affidavit evidence and also not argued the matter. Without affidavit evidence, there is no weightage to the defence of the Opposite Party No.1. The members of association purchased the flat in the year 2008 and till they have not get the Occupancy Certificate. Inspite of repeated requests, the Opposite Party No.1 not handed over the Occupancy Certificate as per the clause No.10 of Joint Development Agreement, hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1. Considering the facts and discussion made herein, we are of the opinion that the complainant's association has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Any how the Opposite Party No.1 in their objection contended that they are trying to make arrangements of the money for Occupancy Certificate and to get the Occupancy Certificate and the same would be handover over to the complainant's association as early as possible. Hence, the following;
ORDER The complaint is allowed.
The Opposite Parties are directed to pay amount demanded by the BBMP and make arrangement to get the Occupancy Certificate and Khatha for the building M/s Radiant Reshan within 3 months from the date of this order.
The Opposite Parties are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.25,000/- as costs to the complainant within 3 months from the date of this Order. In default, the Opposite Parties are directed to pay a interest at 9% to the said amount from the date of default, till realization.
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