BHARATHI Vs. H M CONSTRUCTIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complaint filed under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act for a direction to the opposite party for refund of a sum of Rs.12,50,000/- paid through cheques with interest at 24% p. a. on the said amount from 2.8.1995 till the payment and also payment of income-tax as per Income Tax Rules alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party for the work execution of the flat for which the said amount has been paid by two cheques on 2.8.1995.

(2.) The allegations made in the complaint are that the opposite party M/s. H. M. Constructions, Builders and Developers has received a sum of Rs.12,50,000/- through two cheques on 2.8.1995 acknowledging the same through a letter for allotment of flat in the 3rd floor, Type B1 of Prudence Hall, 19th Cross, Malleswaram, Bangalore-3. The builders had orally assured the complainant that the apartment would be ready by December 96, However, despite repeated requests made by the complainant to enter into an agreement of sale and construction, the opposite party went on postponing the said event on some pretext or the other. Hence, there was no agreement of the sale and construction between them. The complaint further reads that the complainant came to know that the opposite party had collected considerable booking amounts in respect of other apartment also assuring them that the construction work will start soon and the flats will be delivered by the end of December, 1996. The complainant came to know that the monies collected from the purchasers have been diverted by the opposite party and hence, the project at Malleswaram standing for want of funds.

(3.) In the month of December, 1996 the complainant realised that the opposite party had no intention to develop the said property and it was concentrating on other places. This was confirmed in a letter dated 30.3.1996 in which the opposite party had mentioned all other projects except the project under question. Sensing that the amount received from the complainant had been invested elsewhere, the complainant wrote a letter on 30.12.1996 cancelling her booking and seeking refund of her amount as the said apartment was delayed beyond unreasonable time. According to the complaint the construction commenced only in December, 1996. Since the repeated requests made by the complainant to the opposite party had fallen to the deaf ears, after issuing legal notice the complainant approached this commission with this complaint claiming the above reliefs.