IMPORTANT POINT
Trick and Strategy - OP having been received additional or extra amount without disclosing that it was towards VAT or for payment of other taxes and when received informing that it was towards VAT and other taxes is nothing but playing trick and strategy.

ORDER

K.B. Sangannanavar, Judicial Member.—These are the appeals filed U/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by OP/Appellant herein aggrieved by the impugned order dated 04.04.2016 passed by 4th Addl., District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bengaluru in C.C.Nos.1628, 1634, 1644/2006 respectively (For short District Forum and the parties as arrayed in consumer complaint).

2. The brief facts are: The Complainants/Respondents herein are the consumers while OP/Appellant is a service provider in respect of purchase of their apartment built by OP. They have paid sale consideration amount of Rs.30,36,750, Rs.28,53,850/-, Rs.26,78,747/- on 23.10.2005, 23.10.2005 & 01.12.2004 respectively. In this regard, residential apartment registered in their favour on 30.11.2005, 07.11.2005 & 16.08.2005. They alleged against OP that there was a delay in completing entire project works including providing facilities, since the project work to be completed by the end of August 2005 & November 2005. The OP even after payment of entire sale consideration asked the Complainants to pay additional amount of Rs.3,84,786/-, Rs.3,18,379/- & Rs.3,57,578/- respectively without giving any details or reason with an intention to cause wrongful loss to them, went on postponing the delivery of possession of flats and in such circumstances, they have paid such amount and the OP in receipt of the said money, however failed to give breakup of the extra amount to the Complainants. After several requests and reminders, the OP gave a letter containing breakups to them and it was shocking to know that the additional amount paid was towards VAT and other taxes. As such, they have requested OP to refund excess amount collected fraudulently from them in the name of VAT etc., and when he refused to pay the said amount raised consumer complaint. It is contested by OP and the Forum below held an enquiry and their complaint nos.1628, 1634 & 1644 of 2006 came to be allowed directing to refund, and the OP aggrieved by such order preferred appeals before this Commission in Appeal Nos.2643, 2644 & 2645 of 2006 respectively. These appeals came to be dismissed by this Commission on 12.06.2007. The OP aggrieved by the said order preferred Revision Petition before Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition Nos.3113 to 3115/2007. The Hon’ble National Commission vide its order dtd.17.07.2014 disposed of the revisions and matters were remanded back to the Forum below for fresh adjudication after giving an opportunity to both parties to file documents and to decide, whether the amount of VAT was included in the price paid to the OP on or before the date of registration of the sale deed or not, and after necessary documents are filed by parties to dispose of the complaints afresh. Accordingly, the Forum below after remand affording opportunities to both parties passed impugned order which is now in these appeals on the ground, Forum below has failed to consider the terms of agreement. Impugned order is wholly erroneous, since the Forum failed to consider the appropriate provisions of VAT, tax rules and the standards available in so far as imposition of tax are concerned. The Forum below has failed to notice, once the registered sale deed executed, Forum becomes functus-officio to accept any complaint for further adjudication if the right, title, interest, ownership and possession is transferred.

3. The Commission heard the learned counsels on record for parties to the appeals and we examined the impugned order. Now to decide, whether impugned order dtd.04.04.2016 passed in consumer complaint nos.1628, 1634 & 1644 of 2006 call for any interference U/s.15 of CPA 1986 ?

4. The parties to the appeals have admitted their relationship as that of consumer and service provider. They also admitted that OP/Appellant executed sale deed in favour of each Complainant after they made payment of Rs.3,84,786/-, Rs.3,18,379/- & Rs.3,57,578/-. They admit that entire project work including provid