ORDER

1.     This complaint filed under section 12 (1) (c ) read with section 13 (6) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’) alleges deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party who is the developer of a project ‘Ajmer Villows’, Bangalore in which the complainants were allotted the residential villas constructed by the opposite party.

2.     The brief facts of the case are that the applicants on application have been allotted the following villas and had made payments as per the details indicated:

3.     The complainants allege that the opposite party has failed to provide various facilities and amenities promised to them in the brochure, sale agreement and numerous advertisements. They are also aggrieved by the imposition of unjustified costs on the complainants such as additional charge for increase in the super built up area, selling of road in the form of garden, including car parking, inclusion of terrace area in super built up area, additional charges on account of electricity connection provided by BESCOM/ KPTCL, water and sewerage charges by BWSSB and illegal imposition of service tax. The complainants have also filed an application under section 12 (1) (c) claiming reliefs on behalf of other similarly placed buyers in the same project having the same interest and grievances. Despite this application being allowed on 16.02.2021 and a paper publication done as per proof publication filed by Complainant on 26.12.2020, no other similarly placed allottee came forward to get impleaded. The complainants are before this Commission with the prayer to direct opposite parties:

4.     Opposite party was declared ex parte on 16.02.2021, when the matter was listed for final hearing since he has not entered appearance despite notice and has also not filed any reply to the complaint.

5.      I have heard the learned counsel for the complainants and perused the material on record. For reasons of convenience, reference to Sale Deed and the house/ plot will be made based on details of the allotment to complainant no.1.

6.     Learned counsel for the complainants submitted that the opposite party has failed to provide the promised amenities and charged additional amount under various heads resulting in his unjust enrichment without any benefits to the complainants. Complainants have been denied the promised amenities and facilities such as garden area and terrace area and have been charged for amenities that they have not been provided. The prayer in the complaint therefore seeks various reliefs in view of these deficiencies.

7.     On behalf of the complainants it was contended that complainant no.1 had paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.2,88,91,075/- including Rs.14,40,000/- towards 800 sq ft of terrace, Rs.36,63,000/- towards 2035 sq ft garden area in respect of villa no.B 22. Complainant no 2 had paid the sale consideration of Rs.1,77,27,150/- including Rs.6,80,680/- towards 374 sq ft terrace and Rs.4,56,820/- towards 251 sq ft of garden area in respect of villa no. A 5. In respect of complainant no.3, sale consideration of Rs.1,63,36,842/- included Rs.6,10,867/- towards 374 sq ft terrace and Rs.6,77,833/- towards 415 sq ft garden area relating to Villa no. A 13. It is contended that the complainants were required to pay additional amounts towards terrace and garden area and while the promised terrace and garden areas were stated to be 800 sq ft and 2035 sq ft (in respect of complainant no.1), the actual Sale Deed mentions only 267 sq ft of terrace area and garden area. It is also contended that opposite party no.2 had categorically mentioned in the Sale Deed that the buyer’s right would be restricted to carpet area and the built up area only. It is, therefore, submitted that the opposite party has failed to give the garden area as promised and charged for a larger area of the terrace area while not executing the Sale Deed for the full area promised. It is contended that as promised in the brochure, no se