Date of filing; O1.06.2019 Date of Disposal: 21.11.2025 BEFORE TH KARN TAKA ATE CONSU MR DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

TE 1"t F MB o2 coRAM: HON'BLE Mr. JUSTTCE T.G. sHTvAsHANKARE GowDA - PRESTDENT and MTs. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI - LADY MEMBER sct29tcct235t20t8 BETWEE N:

1. R. RAVI KUMAR, S/O RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/A RRK ENTERPRISES, ADJ. GVS RICE MILL, B.R. HILLS ROAD, CHAMARA]ANAGAR-57 1 3 1 3.

2. SMT.DHANALAKSHMI RAVI KUMAR, WO R.RAVI KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEAR, R/AT RRK ENTERPRISES, ADJ. GVS RICE MILL, B.R. HILLS ROAD, CHAMARAIANAGAR-57 1 3 13. ........ COM PLAINANT/S ( BY SRr.A.C. BALARAI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. PATHAK DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., REGD. OFFICE AT:

NO.2gg7,2ND FLOOR, RUKMA COMPLEX, KALIDASA ROAD, V.V. MOHALLA, MYSURU-2, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR CUM CHAIRMAN, )

JAYARAM PATHAK.

(By SRI.VENKATESH R BHAGATH, ADVOCATE)

2. B.H. RAMACHANDRA, S/O S.P. HANUMANTHARAPPA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT 70/I, GOVINDAPPA ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560004.

3. B.H.SRINIVAS MURTHY, S/O S. P.HANUMANTRARAPPA SHETry, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.69/1, MODEL HOUSE, BASAVANGU DI, BENGALU RU_560004.

(By SRT.N.G.SREEDA& ADVOCATE FOR Op NOS.2 AND 3)

4. SMT.K.USHA HAREESH I WO ^{T.S. HAREESH} BABU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.2914, BAJJANNA BUILDING, KOTHWAL RAMAIAH STREET, DEVARAJ MOHALLA, MYSURU. ........ OpposITE pARTy/S (BY SRT.ROOPESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

OR L OR ER (PER: HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE T.c, SHMSHANKARE GOWDA, PRESIDENT)

This Complaint is filed Uls 12 of Consumer protection Act, 1986 (in short Cp Act) seeking direction to Ops to execute the registered sale deed in respect of the flats purchased in terms of the agreement of sale, failing which to refund a sum of Rs.29,00 ,OOOI- paid to the OPs.

2.

The Brief facts of the case are that, Op Nos.2 to 4 are the owner of the property bearing No.1500/59 (Built on Site No.8) situated at Krishnavanam, Chamaraja Mohalla, Mysore. Op1 is the builder.

Op to 4 Nos.1 have entered into loint Development Agreement (in short JDA) for the development of the said land and the owners have executed the registered General Power of Attorney (in short GpA) in favour of the builder for taking necessary permissions and approvals for completion of the project on behalf of the owners. Upon such IDA and the GpA, Op1 has given an advertisement regarding the project in the name of "PRATHAM MAYUR". Upon seeing such advertisement the complainants wants to purchase a flat. Hence they filed an application to the Op1 on 07.05.2013 by paying an advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and booked the flat No.G2, ground floor. Upon receiving the application and advance amount, OP1 has allotted the said flat for a consideration of Rs.31,00,000/-. On 20.05.2013 the complainant have paid Rs.8,30,000/- though they are liable to pay only Rs.5,20,000/- only. After entering into sale agreement and making such payment the complainants have visited the location, found no work is in progress and they made a request to the Op1 to put up the construction and complete the project as agreed within 18 months from the date of agreement. Since the OP1 did not respond and the project was not taken off and after issuing the notice they approached this Commission pleading deficiency of service.

3. On behalf of Op1, vakalath was filed on

30.10.2018 and version is fited on 09.04.2019. 30 + 15 days for filing version is already been lapsed.

Hence version of OP1 is taken as not filed. Accordingly, IA_

7/2079 filed by OP1 for condoning delay in filing version stands dismissed.

3(a)

OP Nos.2 to 4 have contested the complaint by filing version admitting that there was a JDA between them and OP1 on t7.ll.20Lt and as per the same in the said project total 20 units has to be constructed and out of which 10 units falls to the owners and 10 units falls to t the builders. It was also agreed that the both the builders as well as the owners can sell their share of flats independently or they can retain for their own purpose. As per IDA the