Back
KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
K. Ramanna, President and G.T. Vijayalakshmi, Member
NEERAJ BHOPE AND ANR., BHARATHA LAXMI VETSA AND ANR., SOUVIK KHAMARU - Appellants
Versus
ALPINE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND ORS. - Respondents
Complaint Nos. 107/2009, 130 of 2010 and 180 of 2010
Decided on : 29-05-2013
Mr. Ramesh Chandra, Advocate, for the Appellant; M/s. Indus Law, Advocates, for the Respondent
Consumer complaints are maintainable despite an arbitration clause, and the OPs are responsible for the delay in construction and deficiency of service.
Headnote:
Consumer Rights - Real Estate - Specific Relief Act, 1996, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - The judgment discusses the applicability of the Arbitration Clause, the delay in construction due to land acquisition, and the deficiency of service in executing the sale deed and delivering possession. The court held that the complaints were maintainable, rejected the arbitration clause defense, and found the delay in construction to be the responsibility of the OPs. The court awarded interest and compensation for rent paid by the complainants and directed the OPs to execute the sale deed and pay the refunds and litigation expenses.
Fact of the Case:
Complainants sought execution of sale deed and compensation for delay in possession of flats. OPs failed to deliver the flats as promised, leading to financial losses for the complainants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the complaints maintainable, rejected the arbitration clause defense, and held the OPs responsible for the delay in construction and deficiency of service. The court awarded interest, compensation for rent, and directed the OPs to execute the sale deed and pay refunds and litigation expenses.
Issues: Maintainability of complaints, applicability of arbitration clause, responsibility for delay in construction, deficiency of service in executing sale deed and delivering possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The complaints were maintainable, the arbitration clause defense was rejected, and the OPs were held responsible for the delay and deficiency of service. The court awarded interest, compensation for rent, and directed the OPs to execute the sale deed and pay refunds and litigation expenses.
Final Decision: The court allowed the complaints in part, directed the OPs to execute the sale deed, pay refunds with interest, litigation expenses, and compensation for rent, and comply with the order within 45 days.
ORDER
K. Ramanna, President - All these three complaints filed by the respective complainants against the OPs 1 to 3 with a prayer to execute the sale deed in respect of flats applied by them by providing all amenities and world class facilities as stated in their broacher and further directed to pay Rs. 50,000 p.m. from the date of respective dates of agreement till delivery of the flat as compensation or in the alternative refund the entire amount deposited by them together with interest at 24% p.a. and compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 for unfair trade practice and deficiency of service and further directed to pay Rs. 80,000 as pre-closure charges or to pay pre-closure charges to the Bank directly.
2. Though the complainants in the aforesaid three complaints are different, the OPs in all the three complaints are one and the same, the amount paid by them are varies to one another and the relief claimed are one and the same, in order to avoid repetition of facts and law, all three complaints are taken up together, heard and being disposed of by this common order.
3. Complainants in Complaint No. 107/2009 being the husband and wife with an intention to purchase a flat, booked Flat No. 1002 of "O" type on the 10th floor of "Tagus Block" with undivided share of 557/265280 sq. ft., in property bearing Sy. No. 118, New Survey No. 139, Segehalli village, Bidarahalli Hobli by paying a sum of Rs. 50,000 on 5.3.2006 and also paid a total sum of Rs. 34,78,325 on different dates. OPs promised to deliver the flat by 5th August, 2007 in the project known as Alpine Viva. The OPs told the complainants that the cost of the flat including the registration charges will be at Rs. 39,53,957. Therefore, the complainants have paid in all a sum of Rs. 34,78,325 by themselves and through bank on their behalf. Document No. l is the broacher, Document No. 2 is the copy of the letter dated 15.3.2006, Document No. 3 is the payment receipt dated 5.3.2006 and Document No. 4 is the receipt for having paid the amount. Likewise the complainants have paid the amount way of cheque through a Bank. But at the time of negotiations, OPs have permitted the complainants to pay the sale consideration amount in respect of Flat No. 1002 in instalments as per the progress; in construction. Though promised to deliver the Flat on 5th July, 2007, failed to adhere to their promise. For the delay caused by the OPs in executing the registered deed with possession, the complainants were compelled to pay Rs. 6,00,000 by way of interest at the rate of 13.25% to their banker and also they have paid Rs. 1,80,000 to the private parties towards interest. Therefore, the complainants have spent Rs. 46,55,582 for the purpose of owning the flat. The complainants have visited the area, where the flats being constructed and approached the OPs with a request to deliver the Flat with all amenities as undertaken but, it went in vain. Even the ICICI Bank is ready to disburse the balance amount but owing to lack of progress of construction, the Bank did not release the amount. Consequently, the efforts and requests made by the complainants to OPs were not fulfilled. Therefore the complainants were constrained to file the complaint with the aforesaid prayer.
4. Likewise the complainants in Complaint No. 130/2010, after looking into the advertisement and broacher issued by the OPs intended to purchase Flat No. 306 of "Gl" Type on third floor of "Danube Block" with undivided share of 373/265280 sq.ft., in property bearing No. 118, New Survey No. 139, Segehalli village, Bidarahalli Hobli. To that effect, OPs executed agreements and also delivered a letter dated 9.9.2006. The total sale consideration of the flat was at Rs. 24,97,918 excluding the registration charges. On 8.12.2005 complainants have paid Rs. 50,000, Rs. 1,47,423 on 13.3.2006, Rs. l,50,000 on 30.7.2006, Rs. 50,000 on 7.8.2006 and Rs. 1,12,577 on 9.9.2006. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., has sanctioned a sum of Rs. 23,71,321 for purchase of the sai
