Case nº First Appeal No. 476 Of 2017, (Against the Order dated 07/11/2016 in Complaint No. 131/2013 of the State Commission Karnataka) of NCDRC Cases, May 16, 2017 (case Ms. Citi Green Farms (P) Ltd. Vs Rishikesh Borkotoky)
| Judge | For Appellant: Mr. Charudatta Mahindra Kar, Advocate |
| President | Mr. D.K. Jain,President and Mrs. M. Shreesha,Member |
| Resolution Date | May 16, 2017 |
| Issuing Organization | NCDRC Cases |
Order:
-
This First Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by a Real Estate Developer, namely, M/s Citi Green Farms (P) Ltd., is directed against the order dated 07.11.2016, passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bengaluru (for short "the State Commission") in Complaint Case No. 131 of 2013. By the impugned order, the State Commission has partly allowed the Complaint, preferred by the Respondent/Complainant, directing the Appellant herein to refund to the Complainant a sum of `75.00 Lakhs, deposited by him, with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of receipt of the said amount till payment, besides `1,00,000/- as compensation and `25,000/- as litigation costs, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.
-
The circumstances, necessitating filing of the Complaint are as follows:
2.1 Pursuant to the launch of a project, christened as "CG Garden Villas" by the Appellant, offering Villas in Ramadevavara Village, Chikkaballapur District, on 16.09.2010 an agreement to sell was entered into between the Complainant and the Appellant in respect of Villa No. 180, admeasuring 4400 sq. ft. As against the sale consideration of `2.00 Crores of the said Villa, the Complainant had paid a sum of `75.00 Lakhs to the Appellant at the time of entering into the said agreement. Though the Complainant was willing to pay the balance sale consideration but till the date of filing of the Complaint the construction work was not started by the Appellant. When the Complainant approached the Appellant for delivery of physical possession of the Villa, he was told that the construction work would start shortly. In this way, though the Complainant had paid almost 40% of the total sale consideration to the Appellant but possession of the Villa in question was not delivered to him. The Complainant issued a legal notice to the Appellant, requesting either for delivery of possession or refund of the amount deposited by him, with damages etc. However, the said notice did not evoke any response from the Appellant.
2.2 In the said background, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant on the aforesaid counts, the afore-noted Complaint came to be filed before the State Commission, praying for a direction to the Appellant to pay to him a total sum of `98.00 Lakhs with interest @ 12% p.a.
-
Upon notice, the Appellant contested the Complaint by filing its...
To continue reading
Request your trial