STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KARNATAKA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/29/A/106/2018 M/s Sampurna Bhumika Infra (I) Pvt Ltd.

PRESENT ADDRESS - No.146, 1st floor, 1st block, 3rd phase, Banashankari 3rd stage, Bangalore-560085. Rep. by Smt.K.S.Sujatha,KARNATAKA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus Nagendra .B.R.

PRESENT ADDRESS - Aged about 30 years, S/o Ramaswamy.B.N., No.18, 'Silver' 8th cross, 1st Main, ISRO layout, Bengaluru-78,KARNATAKA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. RAVISHANKAR , JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. SMT.SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO DATED: 06/11/2025

ORDER

THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 6^th DAY OF NOVMBER, 2025 APPEAL NO.106/2018 PRESENT SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER M/s Sampurna Bhumika Infra (I) Pvt. Ltd, st st No.146, 1 Floor, 1 Block, rd rd

3 Phase, Banashankari 3 Stage Bengaluru – 85 ...Appellant/s Represented by Smt.K.S.Sujatha (By Sri.J.S.Law Associates, Advocate)

-Versus-

Sri.Nagendra.B.R S/o Ramaswamy.B.N, 30 years No.18, Silver, ...Respondent/s th st

8 Cross, 1 Main, ISRO Layout, Bengaluru-78 (By Sri.H.M.Suresh, Advocate)

O R D E R

BY SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER The Appellant/Opposite Party in complaint No.163/2017 preferred this Appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Commission at Bengaluru (Urban) which directed this appellant to refund Rs.10.00 lakhs along with 18% interest per annum from the date of receipt i.e. 10.9.2014 till realization amount and further directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.4,000/-

towards litigation expenses.

2. Heard from the advocate for respondent. Appellant not present. Perused the certified copy of the order and memorandum of appeal.

3. The gist of the complaint is that, the complainant had paid Rs.10.00 lakhs for purchase of flat bearing No.503, 5^th floor, Varada Block situated at Billekempanahalli village, Bidadi hobli, Ramanagar Taluk and entered into an agreement on 10.9.2014. The consideration amount for purchase of the flat is Rs.33,81,985/- out of which Rs.10.00 lakhs was advance paid at the time execution of the sale agreement. After payment of the said amount and agreement the Opposite Parties have not completed the works and handed over the flat as agreed in the sale agreement. The complainant continuously requested the appellant for registration of the sale deed and also offered for payment of the said balance amount, when they noticed the construction of the apartment was not completed, hence sought for refund of the amount as the complainant approached the District Commission alleging deficiency in service sought for refund of the amount with interest.

4. The District Commission after admission of the complaint had issued a notice against this appellant to file their version, but in spite of service of notice, they remained absent and not contested the matter. The District Commission considering the documents and evidence produced by the complainant had allowed the complaint and directed this appellant to refund the advance amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs with 18% interest from 10.9.2014 i.e. on agreement of sale deed till realization and also directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for deficiency in service and mental agony and also directed to pay cost of Rs.4,000/- toward the litigation expenses. Against which, the appellant came before this commission.

5. The appellant in his notes of arguments have narrated that the amount which was paid the complainant is not towards purchase of the flat, it is only a loan which was provided, on security to the loan, they have executed the sale agreement. The complainant further had not paid any further payment towards the consideration amount. Hence as per the conditions of the sale agreement, 15% of the consideration amount has to be deducted and the balance amount is only payable to the respondent and they ready to pay Rs.1,67,702/- to the respondent. Hence, pr