DAMDEN PROPERTIES Vs. M V PARANJYOTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant M/s. Damden Properties against the order dated 08.02.2012 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka (in short 'the State Commission') passed in Complaint No. CC/128/2010.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Dr. M.V.Paranjyothi (respondent herein) filed a complaint before the State Commission against OP-1 M/s. Unique Unity (not mentioned in memo of parties herein) and OP-2 M/s. Damden Properties (appellant herein). The OP No.1 & 2 entered into a joint development agreement to construct the apartment and to sell the same to the persons interested in purchasing the apartments developed by them in the suit schedule property in plot No.36 and portion of plot No.37 allotted by KIADB situated at Hebbal Industrial area, Hebbal Mysore. In furtherance of the said joint development agreement dated 24.07.2007 they entered into a sale agreement with the complainant. OPs agreed to sell 697 sq.ft. area of undivided share right, title and interest in the immovable property allotted by KIADB in plot No.36 and portion of plot No.37 and on the very same day, the OP-2 entered into a construction agreement with the complainant agreeing to construct a flat bearing No.702 in Block No.2, 7th floor super built up area measuring 1623 sq.ft. along with one car parking slot in the project known as "Damden Solarium". The complainant agreed to purchase flat No.702 for a sum of Rs.40, 20, 990/- and the OPs collected Rs.28 lakhs so far from the complainant. The complainant obtained a housing loan to the extent of Rs.25 lakhs from UTI Bank, Mysore. The complainant and the UTI Bank entered into a tripartite agreement and mortgaged the said property on 26.7.2007. Though the OPs had agreed that they would get the building constructed by September 2009 and would get the said property conveyed to the complainant and put the complainant in possession but, failed to do so. It was stated that she had no option but to reside in a rented house by paying huge sum towards the rent and she is also forced to repay the loan instalments with interest without enjoying the property. When she approached the OPs they did not give proper answers and failed to perform their contractual obligation and there is no hope that the OPs will complete the construction in the near future and, therefore, she terminated the contracts entered into with the OPs and sought for refund of the amount paid. However, to no avail. Hence, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the State Commission. State Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed OP-1 & 2 jointly and severally to refund Rs.28, 00, 000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the respective dates of payments and costs of Rs.5000/-.

(3.) Hence the present appeal.