Back
KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, President, K.B. Sangannanavar, Judicial Member and M. Divyashree, Lady Member
Mridula Manu and Anr. – Complainants
versus
M/s. LGCL Properties Pvt. Ltd.
and Anr. – Opp. Parties
CC. No.31 of 2021
Decided on 18.1.2022
(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.47 – Real Estate – Whether Compliant is maintainable before Consumer Forum – simultaneous cases if can be initiated before RERA and Consumer Forum – jurisdiction and maintainability of the consumer cases before Consumer Commission and RERA – In respect of jurisdiction and maintainability of the consumer cases before Consumer Commission and RERA, and both Consumer Protection Act and Real Estate Regulation & Development Act are comprehensively extends the remedy – Therefore, present complaint is certainly maintainable before this Commission. [Para 7]
(B) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.47 – Real Estate – Compliant filed for alleged delay in delivery of possession of row house, seeking refund of Amount paid for booking – Whether the Complainants are entitled for the relief sought for as against the OP.1 alleging deficiency in service – In the instant case, there is inordinate delay on the part of OP.1 even after receiving around 80% of the agreed amount and in view of inspection report submitted by Executive Engineer, RERA, there is no hesitation to hold that there is delay in handing over possession of the row house – Therefore, after investing their hard earned savings, having been paying regular EMIs to OP.2 and without enjoying the benefit and comfort of a home that they had dreamt of, have undergone immense mental torture, stress which solely attributable to OP.1 and these acts amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, for which OP.1 is liable to compensate – Further, OP.1 is liable to refund the amount paid by the Complainants and also the amount paid towards bank loan pre-EMIs, EMIs and other charges with interest – Hence, OP.1 is also liable to pay the balance outstanding loan amount availed from OP.2 by the Complainants – Complainants are no longer are the owners of the said property/row house in question, hence the tripartite agreement entered into between the parties liable to be cancelled – Compliant partly allowed. [Paras 11 to 15].
Result: Complaint partly allowed.
Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - [12000439650014] - [12000439650015] - [12000439650016] - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)
ORDER
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, President.—This complaint is filed U/s.47 of CPA 2019 by the Complainant No.1 & 2/husband & wife (Complainants) against OP.1/developer & OP.2/bank (Ops) and sought for directions as:
1. Direct the OP.1 to refund Rs.46,32,902/- paid by the Complainants along with interest at 2% above MCLR of SBI commencing from 30.10.2017 till the date of receipt of the amount by the Complainants.
2. Direct the OP.1 to refund Rs.40,61,639/- paid by the Complainants to OP.2 towards bank loan pre-EMIs and EMIs and other charges in respect of loan a/c no.PHR056102916548 along with interest at 2% above MCLR of SBI commencing from 25.01.2018 till the date of receipt of the amount by the Complainants.
3. Direct OP.1 to repay the balance outstanding loan amount availed from OP.2 by the Complainants as per actual in respect of said loan a/c including the principal and interest components, directly to the said bank.
4. Direct OP.1 to refund to the Complainants along with interest at 2% above MCLR of SBI, any further sums paid by the Complainants to OP.2 towards the said bank loan account from this date onwards.
5. Direct OP.2 not to make any demand or request to the Complainants towards payment of the EMIs from the date of this complaint in respect of the said loan account and to collect the remaining instalments directly from the OP.1 without any adverse effects on the credit ratings of the Complainants.
6. Direct OP.1 to pay Rs.5 lakhs each of the Complainants towards mental agony and suffering.
7. Direct OP.1 to pay Rs.1 crore to the Complainants towards opportunity loss.
8. Direct OP.1 to pay the cost of this complaint.
2. The brief facts of the case of the Complainants/husband and wife are that, upon promises and assurances of OP.1/developer, they booked the Row House bearing No.12, super built up area 2652 sq.ft with exclusive right to use 750 sq.ft of terrace area and 446.71 sq.ft of garden area along with 2718.13 sq.ft of undivided share in the land on which the project namely Row House Residential real estate project known as ‘LGCL Pueblo’ was built consisting of 59 houses with amenities such as swimming pool, parks and open spaces, club house etc., by entering in to sale and construction agreement dtd.18.11.2017 for a total sale consideration of Rs.2,06,71,402/-. As per the agreements the possession of the house was on 30.06.2019. Since the OP.2/bank is tie up with OP.1, they availed housing loan of Rs.1,39,09,053/- by entering in to Tripartite agreement dtd.24.01.2018 and the said amount directly received by OP.1. In addition the Complainants had to bear other miscellaneous charges towards processing charges, CERSAI charges etc., Complainants further submit that, out of sale consideration amount they made total payment of Rs.1,85,41,955/- (Rs.1,39,09,053/- + 46,32,902/-) including the loan amount disbursed towards land cost, construction cost and modification charges which has duly acknowledged by OP.1. However, OP.1 has illegally sought to include interest on alleged delayed payment at an exorbitant rate of 24% p.a. + GST which amounts to a huge sum of Rs.12,80,483/- although the Complainants have promptly fulfilled all their obligations and made almost 90% of the payments well within time, whereas there has been a gross delay on the part of OP.1. There has been absolutely no progress in the construction of the entire project. The said project was registered with RERA and supposed to be completed by 30.06.2019, but OP.1 has not even bothered to seek for renewal of the project registration U/s.6 of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016. At the time of registration, OP.1 has issued declaration to RERA stating that the project would be completed by 31.12.2018. Complainants further submit that, almost all the other buyers in the project have also filed complaints against OP.1 before RERA, out of which 2 of them disposed off granting reliefs sought for therein vide order dtd.22.05.19 & 24.02.20. Co
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
