Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Anup K Thakur, Presiding Member and C. Viswanath, Member
Anriya Project Management
Services Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. —Appellants
versus
Prakash Mehra —Respondent
First Appeal No.1565 of 2017
(Against the Order dated 19/08/2016 in Complaint No. 133/2012 of the State Commission Karnataka)
Decided on 23.10.2018
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Mr. B.S. Manjunath, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. Vandana Jalan and Mr. Sujit Kr. Keshri, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
When no cogent proof is filed in support of any allegation made in the pleading, the same is liable to be rejected.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act,1986 – First Appeal – Section – 19 - The Appellants/Opposite Parties constructed a residential condominium called as Anriya Palatial, situated at No.2/4, Lottegollahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk - On persuasion by the Appellants, the Respondent booked a Flat in the Project of the Appellants - The Respondent paid an advance of Rs. 25 lakhs as booking amount to Appellant No.1 by cheque but the Appellant had not issued any receipt - Thereafter, the Respondent cancelled the advance booking , but the advance amount was not repaid to the respondent inspite of repeated demands – Hence, after issuing notice, complaint was filed for refund of the amount paid with interest and costs – O.P resisted the complaint on various grounds – Complaint was allowed with interest @ 9% p.a – Aggrieved by the order present appeal was filed – Heard the counsels, perused the documents – Appellants allegation that the amount was adjusted for the purchase of flat by the son of the complainant cannot be accepted and no cogent proof is filed to that effect – Hence, appeal has no merit and is hereby dismissed confirming the orders of the State Commission.
Result: Appeal is dismissed.
The present First Appeal is filed by the Appellants under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in C.C. No. 133/2012 dated 19.08.2016.
2. It is stated by the Respondent/Complainant that the Appellants/Opposite Parties constructed a residential condominium called as Anriya Palatial, situated at No.2/4, Lottegollahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. On persuasion by the Appellants, the Respondent booked a Flat in the Project of the Appellants. The Respondent paid an advance of Rs. 25 lakhs as booking amount to Appellant No.1 by cheque but the Appellant had not issued any receipt as it was only an advance to reserve the right of allotment of a flat. Thereafter, the Respondent cancelled the advance booking, as the Appellants quoted exorbitant sale price when compared to the one that was offered by one of the stakeholders in the same project. The Respondent pursued with the Appellants for refund of the booking amount of Rs. 25 Lakhs. The Appellants requested the Respondent for some time as they were in deep financial crisis and on humanitarian grounds the Respondent agreed to grant a years time to the Appellants for refund of the same. Thereafter, the Appellants kept on dodging their promise on one pretext or the other. Finally, on 30.03.2012, the Respondent issued a letter to the Appellants seeking refund of the advance amount. The Appellants, vide letter dated 17.04.2012, replied that the booking amount paid by the Respondent has attained finality on the basis of a sale deed dated 08.02.2011, which was totally false. Hence, Complaint was filed by the Respondent alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Appellants.
3. The Complaint was contested by the Appellants in the State Commission stating that in the year 2008-09, Appellant No. 1 faced extreme stress of re-payment and availed loan from financial institutions. The Respondent approached Appellant No.1 for booking of a Flat, being aware of the loan to be repaid by the Appellant No.1 to M/s Brindavan Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter, on 08.02.2011, the Respondent negotiated the entire transactions with M/s Brindavan Beverages Pvt. Ltd. and got the sale deed executed in the name of his son Rakesh Mehra and daughter-in-law Shweta Mehra. Hence, the averments made by the Respondent in the Complaint were not true and there was no deficiency of service on the part of the Appellants.
4. The State Commission, vide order dated 19.08.2016, partly allowed the Complaint and directed the Appellants to pay Rs. 25 lakhs to the Respondent , with interest @9% per annum from the date of payment till realization, on the ground that Appellants have no right to appropriate the amount received from the Respondent towards any cause of purchase of the apartment by the Respondent’s son. Being aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the Appellants filed the present Appeal.
5. The grounds for filing the present Appeal are as below:
• Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 states that Complaint shall not be admitted if it is not filed within 2 years from the date of cause of action.
• The cause of action mentioned in the Complaint is of 20.11.2009. Hence, Complaint should have been filed within 2 years i.e. on or before 20.11.2011 but it was filed on 07.11.2012. There is a delay of about 1 year and no application was filed by the Respondent for condonation of the delay in filing the Complaint Case.
6. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellants and Respondent. They reiterated their respective contentions as stated above. We have also carefully gone through the evidence placed on record.
7. The Appellant is a builder. The Respondent approached the Appellants for booking of a flat and paid Appellant No.1, an advance of Rs.25,00,000/- through cheque being No.230944 dated 20/11/2009 drawn of Dena Bank. Later the Res
