scl29lAl677

12023 Date of Filing:06.04.2023 Date of Disposal:04. t2.2025 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PRINCIPAL BENCH DATED, THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 PRESENT HON,BLE MT JUSTICE T G SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA:

PRESIDENT HON,BLE MTS DIVYASHREE M:LADY MEMBER sc/29/ Al677 /2023 Miss Enakshi Roy D/o. Mr Subash Roy Aged about 34 Years, Residing at: FE 398 (GF) Salt Lake, Sector 3 Kolkata, West Bengal-700106 Appellant (By Mrs Ayantika Mondal, Advocate)

-Versus-

M/s. Sobha Limited Sarjapur- Marhalli, Outer Ring Road, Bellandur Post, Devarabisanahlli, Bellandur Post, Benga luru- 560103 R6presented by the Managing Director, Mr. Jagadish Chandrasharma.

Advocate)

(By Mr Prashant T Pandit, Respondent ,2 scl29lAl677

12023 : ORAL ORDER:

:

PER MT JUSTICE T G SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA:

PRESIDENT This Appeal is filed U/S 4L of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by Complainant challenging the Order dated 27.12.2022 passed in Consumer Complaint No.257/2021 by the Bengaluru Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (in short, the District Commission).

2.

Appellant was the Complainant and Respondent was the Opposite Party (in short OP) before the District Commission. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the District Commission.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, OP has undertaken a project in the name of 'Sobha Arena Project' at Belandur. The Complainant after coming to know about the said project, approached the OP, booked the flat bearing No.P-9131, in 13th Floor, Block No.4 (the Square), measuring 1601.76 Sq. ft, at a total cost of sc l2e I 12023 ^1677

Rs.1,11,01 ,009/-, by paying advance amount of advance booking money, the Complainant came to know that there is a pending litigation on the property and apprehending that the project may be delayed, he requested the OP to cancel his booking of flat and to refund the money, on 13.01,2021. OP failed to reply the request and having unable to find a solution, on 12.02.2021 a letter was also written, for which he received a whatsapp message on 02.02.2021, stating that they ^can only refund the amount deposited, after selling the ^same flat to a new customer. Pleading deflciency in service, Complalnant has filed the Complaint before the, 4.

Commission.

Before the District Commission, OP has opposed the

complaint, by filing his version contending that the terms and conditions made in the booking form is binding, Rs.2,00,000/- on 23.09.2020 and Rs.3,55,050/- on both the parties, Only after sale of the flat to a ^new customer, the Complainant is entitled for refund of, 25.09.2020, totalling Rs.5,55,050/-. After paying the

scl29lAl677

12023 amount deposited and same was offered. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and sought for dismissal of the complaint.

5.

Before the District Commission, Complainant has filed her affidavit evidence as PW1 and 9 documents came to be marked as Annexure A-1 to A-9. On behalf of OP, Authorised Signatory of OP has filed his affidavit evidence as RW1 and Ex-R-1 to R-7 came to be marked.

6.

The District Commission after hearing both the parties, allowed the Complaint in part and directed the OP to pay a sum of Rs.5,55,050/- with interest at 10o/o p.a. Also dlrected the OP to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost. Aggrieved by the same the interest awarded is for a restricted period, the Complalnant has preferred this present Appeal.

7.

We have heard arguments of learned counsels for both sides.

8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Complalnant that when the Complalnant has deposited the )

sc 129 I 41677 12023 advance money to the OP, same was utilised by them. After knowing about the pending litigation on the property, the Complainant has requested for refund of the booking to amount, which the ^. Complainant ought have been refunded with reasonable interest and objected that the refund is subject to sale of t