Bangalore Urban 3rd Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
No.8, 6th Floor, Sahakara Bhavan, Cunningham Road, Bangalore-560 052.
Complaint Case No. CC/10/1288
1. Sri. Dilip Dadalani
S/o Late Kishanchand, R/o Supreme House, 4/F1, 402, 2A Hart Avenue T.S.T., Kowloon, Hongkong. Rep by its SPA Holder, K.R.Sridhar, No.24, Fort Kengeri, Bangalore-60
Karnataka
………..Complainant(s)
Versus
1. M/s Benchmark Builders Ltd.,
A Developers Having its office at No.1, Curlie Street, Richmond Town, Bangalore-25. Rep by its Director, G. Pishu
Karnataka
…………Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE:
HONORABLE T. Rajashekharaiah PRESIDENT
HONORABLE Dr. Subhashini Member
HONORABLE H.M.SHIVALINGAPPA Member
PRESENT:
ORDER
BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
BANGALORE – 560 052.
DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF MARCH 2011
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1288/2010
PRESENT:
Sri T. Rajashekharaiah, B.A. L.L.B.,
PRESIDENT
Sri. H.M.Shivalingappa, B.Sc., LL.B.,
MEMBER
Smt. Dr. Subhashini, M.B.B.S.,
MEMBER
COMPLAINANT -
Sri Dilip Dadalani,
S/o Late Kishanchand,
Aged about 54 years,
R/o supreme House, No.4/F1, 402,
2A Hart Avenue TST, KOWLOON,
HONGKONG,
Represented by his SPA Holder
Sri K.R. Sudhir, No.24, Fort, Kengeri,
BANGALORE – 560 060.
V/S
OPPOSITE PARTY -
M/s BENCHMARK BUILDERS LIMITED, A DEVELOPER,
Having its office at No.1, Curlie Street, Richmond Town,
BANGALORE – 560 025,
Represented by its Director
Sri G. PISHU.
ORDER
1. This Complaint was filed on 08.06.2010 under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Complaint in brief is as hereunder: The Complainant prays for a direction to the Opposite Party to return the sale consideration of Rs.8 lakhs paid towards the purchase of flat bearing No.D-1 situated in 3rd Floor of Block No.1, Property No.22, situated in Kengeri Municipal Limits, Bangalore South Taluk now coming under the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike limits. The Complainant submits that he purchased the flat under registered sale deed dt.22.09.2004 for a sale consideration of Rs.4,41,750/- with super built-up area measuring 775 sq. ft. while executing the registered sale deed, the Opposite Party has received further amounts in all Rs.8 lakhs including sale consideration and to provide civic amenities such as lift, security, water, parking, common lighting and internal electrification.
2. The Complainant further submits that the Opposite Party has failed to provide any civic amenities in the flat despite repeated requests and demands. The Complainant is a resident of Hongkong and he had requested his Special Power of Attroney Holder to pursue the matter with the Opposite Party. But so far, the Opposite Party did not take any action to provide civic amenities and the construction work carried out by the Opposite Party is of low quality. The Complainant further submits that he issued a legal notice dt.06.01.2010 calling upon the Opposite Party to return the amount of Rs.8 lakhs together with interest at 24% p.a. from 22.09.2004. Despite the service of notice, the Opposite Party has not come forward to comply the demand so far. The Complainant further submits that the Opposite Party despite requests made by the Complainant has not come forward to provide civic amenities after receiving the entire sale consideration amount. The Complainant submits that he is subjected to mental agony and torture and the Opposite Party has been deficient in its service. The Complainant prays that the Opposite Party be directed to return Rs.8 lakhs along with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of execution of the Sale Deed, till realization. The Complainant also prays that the Opposite Party be directed to pay sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1 lakh towards the loss of income for the last six years and also Rs.44,480/- towards registration charges. The Complainant also prays for the costs of litigation. Together with the Complaint, the Complainant has also filed photocopies of several documents.
3. The Opposite Party has filed its Version on 06.09.2010. The Opposite Party submits that the construction work for the apartment building known as “First Home Apartments” was started in the year 1993-94. The First Home Apartments consists of 32 apartments constructed on two blocks of 16 apartments each with the common lift and staircase. The first phase was the construction of one block of 16 apartments and the second phase was construction of second block of 16 apartments to be built from the money accrued from the sale of first block. The construction of first block of 16 apartments was completed in the year 1996-97. The Complainant approached the Opposite Party in the year 1995 and expressed his interest to purchase two apartments in the first block. The sale consideration of Rs.4,41,750/- for each apartment was agreed upon and the Complainant started making payment in instalments from February 1995. Though the construction of the first block of 16 apartments was completed in 1996-97, the Complainant came forward to register the Sale Deed in respect of apartment D-1 only in 2004. Before registering the Sale Deed in respect of the apartment D-1, the Complainant has personally checked the apartment and has been satisfied with the construction and the amenities. Immediately after registering the Sale Deed, the Complainant has affixed his lock on the main door of the apartment. The Complainant is required to pay the annual maintenance charges of Rs.6,000/- per year per flat. Apart from paying the maintenance charges for the first year, the Complainant has not paid annual maintenance charges till date. The Complainant has also not paid the electricity bill pertaining to apartment No.D-1. The Opposite Party has been paying the electricity bill pertaining to apartment D-1 till April 2007, but the Complainant has not reimbursed the amount paid by the Opposite Party. Since the electricity bill was not paid from 2007 BESCOM has disconnected the electricity supply to the apartment. The Complainant has also not paid the property tax in respect of apartment No.D-1. The Opposite Party further submits that he has paid the property tax on behalf of the Complainant along with all the other apartments up to the year 2005-06. Since the Complainant did not reimburse these amounts, the Opposite Party stopped paying property tax on behalf of the Complainant. The Opposite Party further submits that the averments of the Complainant that he has paid Rs.8 lakhs is denied as false. The Opposite Party has received a total sum of Rs.4,41,750/- in respect of apartment D-1. The Opposite Party submits that there is no deficiency in service by the Opposite Party and the Complaint is false, frivolous and mischievous. The Opposite Party is not liable to pay any amount to the Complainant much less the compensation and loss of income as claimed by the Complainant. Infact, the Complainant is due and liable to pay the Opposite Party the actual maintenance charges from 2005 along with electricity charges and property tax. The Opposite Party prays that this Complaint be dismissed with exemplary costs.
4. The affidavit for the Complainant filed on 06.01.2011 by one Mr. K.R. Sudheer, S/o K.R. Ramachandra, SPA Holder of the Complainant. The Opposite Party has also filed his affidavit by way of evidence. At the end, this Forum heard on merits.
5. In the circumstances, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision and they are:
(i) Whether the Complainant has established the alleged deficiency of service by the Opposite Party?
(ii) If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled?
6. Our Findings to these points are as hereunder:
i) Negative
ii) As per final order.
R E A S O N S
7. POINT NOs.1 & 2:- This Complaint was filed by the Complainant seeking for a direction to the Opposite Party for refund of Rs.8 lakhs that he has paid for the purchase of flat No.D-1 “First Home Apartments”, D-1, 3rd Floor of Block No.1, Property No.22 situated in Kengeri Municipal Limits, Bangalore South Taluk. The Complainant has produced the original deed of sale which was executed on 22.09.2004. The documents reveal that the Complainant has purchased the flat for a consideration of Rs.4,41,750/- and he has also paid Rs.4,870/- towards the registration charges. According to the Complainant, the Opposite Party has failed to provide the amenities which were promised at the time of purchase of the apartment. Amenities such as lifts, electrical connections, security, maintenance of garden, insurance of building, electricity and water charges for common areas was promised, but so far the Opposite Party has failed to provide any of the amenities which was promised. The Complainant has produced several photographs to show that the flats are poorly maintained and the facilities are not provided as promised.
8. The Opposite Party has contended that though the registration of the Sale Deed was done in the year 2004, the Complainant has so far not paid the maintenance charges nor has he paid the property tax or the electricity bill for the flat D-1. The Opposite Party has produced electricity bill which shows that the bills were paid up to 02.04.2007. Now the Opposite Party contends that since the Complainant refused to reimburse the electricity charges paid by the Opposite Party towards the charges for flat D-1, the Opposite Party stopped paying the charges and hence, the BESCOM has disconnected the electricity to the flat D-1. The Opposite Party has produced photographs of meters to show that electricity has been provided to all the flats. The Opposite Party has also produced receipts for tax being paid up to 2005-2006. The Opposite Party has produced receipts for having provided the security service to the apartment. The Opposite Party has also produced several photographs in support of their contention. It is a submission of the Opposite Party that these flats were built way back in the year 1993-94 and the Complainant had paid the sale consideration of Rs.4,41,750/- in instalments. Though the building was completed much earlier the Complainant got the flat registered only in the year 2004. It is the contention of the Opposite Party that after the registration of the flat, the Complainant affixed a lock on his apartment and thereafter it was his duty to pay for the electricity, water charges, property tax etc. The Opposite Party has produced the receipts for having paid the property tax, electricity charges and the water chargers on behalf of the Complainant, but now it is the contention of the Opposite Party that since the Complainant did not reimburse any of these charges, he stopped paying the electricity charges and hence, BESCOM has disconnected the electricity to the apartment owned by the Complainant.
9. On perusal of the documents produced by both the parties, it is clear the Complainant who is a resident of Hongkong had purchased this apartment. The Complainant has shown very little interest in the maintenance of the flat, after having registered the flat in the year 2004. The Complainant cannot now raise the contention that the construction is poor or that the facilities are not provided by the Opposite Party. As the owner of the flat, it is a duty of the Complainant to pay for the charger like electricity, water, property tax etc. The Complainant has not produced any documents to show that he has been paying for the services. On the other hand, the Opposite Party has produced photographs to show electricity has been provided and that connection to the Flat D-1 has been disconnected as the Complainant has not paid the electric bill. The Opposite Party has also produced documents to show that he has been taking care of electric, water, tax etc., on behalf of the Complainant. Though the Complainant has taken the contention that he has paid totally a sum of Rs.8 lakhs for the purchase of the apartment D-1 from the Opposite Party, the document show that he has paid only Rs.4,41,750/- now the Complainant cannot ask for a direction for refund of Rs.8 lakhs. Infact the Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service by the Opposite Party. Hence, we proceed to pass the following;
O R D E R
The Complaint is dismissed. No costs.
This Order is pronounced on this the 31st day of March 2011.
Dr. SUBHASHINI H.M.SHIVALINGAPPA T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
[HONORABLE T. Rajashekharaiah]
PRESIDENT
[HONORABLE Dr. Subhashini]
Member
[HONORABLE H.M.SHIVALINGAPPA]
Member