SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 24572

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mridula Manu – Appellant
Versus
LGCL Properties Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
SC/29/CC/31/2021



Date of Filing :19.04.2021 Date of Disposal :18.01.2022 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF JANUARY 2022 PRESENT HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT Mr. K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER Mrs.M.DIVYASHREE : LADY MEMBER CC.No.31/2021

1. Mridula Manu W/o Sanjith Kuttan Aged about 38 years

2. Sanjith Kuttan S/o M.Kuttan, Aged about 38 years Both R/at A-702, Epitome Crowne, Bilekahalli, Ranka Colony, Bannerghatta Road, BTM Layout, Bengaluru-76. … Complainant (By Adv.Sri.B.K.Sampathkumar)

-Versus-

1. M/s.LGCL Properties Pvt . Ltd.

Having its office at No.12/1, Rest House Road, Bengaluru-01.

Rep by its Director (By Adv.Sri.P.P.Hegde)

2. Axis Bank Ltd., Having its office at Retail Assets Center, No.19, 60 ft road, Sahakaranagar, Bengaluru-92.

Rep. by Branch Manager ..Opposite Parties (By Adv.Sri.Jai.M.Patil)

O R D E R

HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

1. 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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top