ORDER

Ravishankar, Judicial Member—The complainant filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties alleging deficiency in service in not given possession of the flat by registering the sale deed, inspite of payment of the entire consideration amount. Hence, prays for refund of the entire amount with the interest at the rate of 18% and also compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for deficiency of service and Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses.

2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:—

The Opposite Party Nos.1 to 9 have started giving advertisement for construction for “T3 Green City – Rose” at Vamadapadav, Mangalore and agreed to complete the construction within 2015. The complainant attracted by the advertisement given by them and paid an amount of Rs.11,01,000/- as a consideration value of the flat. In this regard, the Opposite Parties had issued a receipt and undertaken to complete the work within 2015. There afterwards, the Opposite Parties have keep on issuing the letter on different dates disclosing the status of the building. The complainant noticed that inspite of issuance of a different notices and letter correspondence the Opposite Parties have not completed the construction work and it is learned that the bank has filed a complaint against the Opposite Parties for recovery of the loan which was sanctioned for the purpose of construction. The Opposite Parties have misguided and falsely assured to complete the construction and hand over the possession. The complainant finally filed a police compliant against the Opposite Parties u/s 403, 405, 415, 420 and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 under PCR No.9560/2019. Even inspite of police complaint they are not undertaken to complete the construction work. Apart from the police complaint this complainant issued a legal notice on 13.05.2019 and called upon them to refund the amount paid towards the purchase of the flat, inspite of notice was refused and unclaimed. The complainant subsequently filed a complaint before this Commission alleging a deficiency of service and sought for refund of the entire amount of Rs.11,01,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% along with compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses in the interest of justice and equity.

3. Notice issued through substituted service by way of paper publication, inspite of service of notice through paper publication Opposite Party Nos.1 to 9 not appear before this Commission. Hence, they placed ex-parte.

4. The Opposite Party No.10 appeared through his counsel filed version and contended that during 2017 the Opposite Party No.1 T3 Urban Developers Ltd has approached this OP No.10 for sanction of the loan to the tune of Rs.5 crores as a security for repayment of the above said credit facility sanctioned by this Opposite Party. The Opposite Party No.1 along with others have created mortgage and hypothecation in favour of bank with respect to the immovable property and current assets with stocks and receivables. The Opposite Party Nos.1 to 9 Directors failed to repay the above said credit facility sanctioned by this bank having no option this Opposite Party had filed O.A No.652/2019 before Debt Recovery Tribunal at Bangalore for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,00,04,703.50/- (Rupees Five Crores Four Thousand and Seven Hundred and

Three and Fifty paise Only) with interest from January 2019 against the first and other Opposite Party. The said O.A is pending before DRT.

5. In view of the proceedings pending before DRT the rights of this Opposite Party Bank over the mortgage property and current assets has a secured the creditor is paramount. There is no any deficiency of service made out by the complainant against this Opposite Parties they are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant and this Opposite Party is not a necessary party to this complaint. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complainant against this Opposite Parties.

6. The complainant filed affida