w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Shaila Prasad & Another v/s M/s Kristal Projects (India) Ltd., Bengaluru & Another

    Consumer Complaint Nos. 386, 387 of 2019

    Decided On, 25 January 2022

    At, Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bangalore

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. RAVI SHANKAR
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI
    By, MEMBER

    For the Complainants: Keshava Reddy, Advocate. For the Opposite Parties: K.K. Namboodiri, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Ravi Shankar, Judicial Member

1. This is a complaint filed by the complainants alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and prayed to execute and register the sale deed by accepting the balance sale consideration along with Rs.10 lakhs towards deficiency in service and Rs.2 lakhs towards mental agony.

2. The averments in the complaint are as hereunder;

It is the case of the complainants that they intend to purchase a site No.3J 126 measuring 1530 sq.ft. bearing Survey No.79 & 80, situated in Kasvanahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk from the Opposite Parties project namely M/s Kristal Projects (India) Ltd., and entered into a Sale Agreement dt.28.05.2012 and Tripartitie Agreement for a sale consideration of Rs.47,60,629/- and a sum of Rs.71,40,943/- towards cost of construction. The total cost of schedule ‘B’ property and schedule ‘C’ villa is Rs.1,19,01,572/-. The complainant also sought for additional work in the schedule ‘C’ Villa and the Opposite Party No.1 agreed to carry out the additional work with additional cost. The complainants have paid Rs.1,09,86,100/- to the Opposite Party No.1 inclusive of the cost towards additional work carried in the schedule ‘C’ Villa and which was duly acknowledged by the Opposite Party No.1. The complainants further alleged that they are only required to pay the balance amount of Rs.6,22,984/- to the Opposite Party No.1 which was agreed to be conditional upon the Opposite Party No.1 registering the schedule ‘B’ property in the name of the complainants.

3. The complainants further alleged that they sold their property situated at H52 Harmu Housing Colony, Ranchi against the purchase of the schedule ‘B’ property and schedule ‘C’ villa. In terms of the agreement dt.28.05.2012 the Opposite Party No.1 along with Opposite Party No.2 are required to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the complainants and the Opposite Party No.1 agreed to receive the balance sale consideration amount at the time of registration of the sale deed. In February 2019 the complainants have paid the further payment of Rs.50,000/- through RTGS to the account of Opposite Party No.1. Inspite of requests and demands made by the complainants, the Opposite Parties have not registered and executed the sale deed in favour of the complainants, hence, the complainants issued a legal notice which was duly served on 04.02.2019 to the Opposite Parties 1 & 2, but, the Opposite Parties have not replied to the said legal notice. Hence, the complaint.

3. Notice to the Opposite Parties returned unserved as ‘left’. Hence, paper publication was taken up in a Kannada newspaper “Samyuktha Karnataka” and service held sufficient. The Opposite Parties remained absent, hence, placed exparte. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and documents at Ex.C1 to C9 are marked. Heard the advocate for complainant.

4. On perusal, the following points will arise for our consideration;

(i) Whether the complaint is deserves to be allowed?

(ii) What order?

5. The findings to the above points are;

(i) Positive

(ii) As per final order

REASONS

6. On perusal of the affidavit evidence of the complainant, it is nothing but reiteration of the pleadings of the complaint. The complainants have produced copy of the Agreement of Sale, statement of account, Possession Certificate issued by the Opposite Party, legal notice and postal acknowledgement. On perusal of the same, it appears that the complainant has paid Rs.1,10,36,100/- to procure schedule ‘B’ property and schedule ‘C’ villa from the Opposite Parties. In the circumstances, the contention of the complainant that he has paid a sum of Rs.1,10,36,100/- is supported by the copies of the receipts produced by them. The version of the complainants that the Opposite Parties have not executed the sale deed in favour of the complainants has gone unchallenged. Inspite of the Agreement of Sale, the complainants are constrained to file this complaint to get the Villa registered in their favour, hence, the complainants are entitled for compensation for the delay made by the Opposite Parties. There are no reasons to discredit the evidence of the complainants. Hence, the following;

ORDER

The complaint is allowed with cos

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ts of Rs.25,000/-. The Opposite Parties are directed to execute and register the Sale Deed in favour of the complainants by receiving the balance sale consideration amount from the complainants within 30 days from the date of this Order. The Opposite Parties are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainants towards compensation for the delay within the execution of the sale deed as stated above. Forward free copies to both the parties.
O R