K. BOOPATHY Vs. N. JAYAVANTHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition has been filed against the impugned Order dtd. 17/10/2017 passed by the Ld. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka in Appeal No. 33/2016, vide which the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed, and the Order of the Ld. District Forum was affirmed.

(2.) The Complainant's case revolves around the purchase of two adjacent sites, numbered 108 and 109, situated in Doddanagamangala Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore. These sites were carved out from Sy. No. 14 and 15. The Complainant paid a total of Rs.4,52,000.00 for these sites, as evidenced by separate receipts. The Sale Deeds for these sites were registered on 6/5/2003 and 1/6/2004 at the Sub-Registrar's office, Bangalore South Taluk. Despite the purchase and registration, the Complainant did not receive possession of the sites. The Petitioner had promised to mark the boundaries and deliver possession at a later date. However, complications arose when some individuals initiated a dispute against the Petitioner in OS No. 523 /2011 before the Principal Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Bangalore Rural District. They obtained an injunction order and fenced the disputed land, which included the Complainant's sites. The individuals claiming rights over the land argued that the sites purchased by the Complainant were not part of Sy. No. 14 and 15 but rather part of Sy. No. 14/16. To resolve the dispute and clarify the exact location of the sites, a Commission was appointed by the Court. The said Commission, in its report submitted in March 2014, confirmed that the sites in question were indeed part of Sy. No. 14/16 and not Sy. No. 14 and 15 as claimed by the Complainant. Subsequently, the Complainant sent a Legal Notice to the Petitioner, demanding either the refund of the purchase amount at market value along with 18% p.a. interest or the delivery of the sites as promised. When the Petitioner failed to comply with either demand, the Complainant approached the Ld. District Forum seeking relief and resolution to the issue.

(3.) The District Forum vide its Order dtd. 4/11/2015 allowed the Complaint No. 742/2014 and directed the Petitioner to pay to the Complainant an amount of Rs.4,52,000.00 with interest @18% p.a. from the date of registration of sale deeds till the date of realization, along with Rs.5,00,000.00 towards deficiency of service, and Rs.3,000.00 towards litigation costs. The Petitioner filed Appeal against the Order in the State Commission which dismissed it and affirmed the Order in the District Forum. The relevant extracts of the impugned Order are set out as below -