IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Delay – It is undisputed that there has been delay in the handing over possession of the Flat as per the Agreement and the OP had cancelled the allotment to the Complainant.
(2) Question of Law – Appellant has not brought anything substantial in facts or question of law or established any legal infirmity in the Order of the State Commission.

ORDER

AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM, VSM (Retd.) Member—The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) against the Order dated 27.02.2018 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (hereinafter to be referred as “the State Commission”), in Consumer Complaint No.146 of 2017, wherein the Complaint filed by the Complainant (Respondent herein) was partly allowed.

2. There was 13 days delay in filing of this First Appeal. For the reason stated in IA 8496/2018, the same is condoned.

3. For Convenience, the parties in the present case are being referred to as mentioned in the Complaint before State Commission.

4. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that Mr. VK Ravindra and his family applied for land conversion and subsequently entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) and General Power of Attorney (GPA) with Opposite Party (OP) on 30.08.2010. The OP intended to develop the property by constructing a housing complex named “RK Big Banyan Roots,” comprising multi-storied apartments, common entrances and other amenities.

5. The Complainant agreed to purchase an apartment along with a proposed undivided share in the property and entered into a sale agreement and construction agreement with the OP on 06.09.2014, agreeing to purchase the land for Rs. 80 lakhs. He made an initial payment of Rs. 1,08,000/-. The OP promised to deliver possession of the flat by September 2015, with a six-month grace period. The Complainant paid a total of Rs. 75,58,000/- by cheques, which the OP acknowledged. However, the OP failed to deliver the flat, offering various excuses and repeatedly deferring the possession date. The OP intentionally delayed the project. Since The Complainant had raised loans from banks, relatives, and friends to make the payments. He alleged that the OP cancelled the agreement without his consent. When the Complainant sought a refund, the OP gave false assurances and failed to repay the amount. On 14.01.2016, the Complainant had forwarded an email to the OP, who responded by suggesting that he should file a case. Consequently, feeling aggrieved, he filed Consumer Case No. 146 of 2017 before the learned State Commission, seeking a direction to the Opposite Parties to refund Rs. 75,58,000/- with interest at 18% per annum from the date of payment until the date of actual realization, to cancel the sale and construction agreements dated 06.09.2014, and to pay damages of Rs. 10 lakhs.

6. Upon notice duly served to the Opposite Party by RPAD, the OP failed to appear. Consequently, the Opposite Party was proceeded ex-parte.

7. The State Commission, in its Order dated 27.02.2018, partly allowed the Complaint with the following directions:—

“The complaint is hereby allowed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-

The Opposite Parties are directed to return a sum of Rs.75,58,000/- to the complainant along with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of payment of the amount, till the date of actual realization within three months from the date of this order. Failing which, the complainant is at liberty to recover the same by filing an application u/s 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party.”

8. Aggrieved by the Order of the State Commission, the Appellant/ Complainant filed FA No. 710 of 2018 seeking the following:

“a) Set-aside the impugned ex-parte order dated 27.02.2018 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore in Complaint No.146 of 2017 and consequently allow the Appellant to come on record contest the matter Complaint No.146 of 2017;

b) To issue any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Forum may deem just and fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of Justice and equity.”

9. In the Appeal, the Appellant mainly raised following grounds:—

a) The Appellant remained unrepresented before the KSCDRC due to circumst