Karnataka   

Layout promoter asked to refund advance

BANGALORE: The Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has directed a real estate promoter and developer to return advance amounts with interest to three persons for its failure to complete a layout.

Anil Kumar Gobbak, Jeetendra Kumar and Apurva Nagoree approached Fortune Projects in 2004 for residential sites in “Fortune City” project each costing Rs. 8.4 lakh. They paid Rs. 2.10lakh each for purchasing sites measuring 2400 sq. ft. They filed a complaint against the developer for failure to complete the project within three months as agreed upon. They alleged that the developer had failed to return the advance amount.

The District Forum found no proof of development of the layout even after receiving permission from the Bangalore Metropolitan Region Development Authority. “When the layout is not formed, complainants have the right to seek refund of the advance amount,” the forum said. It said the developer had made “wrongful gain” by retaining the huge advance amount for a long time.

The forum directed the developer to return Rs. 2.1 lakh with 18 per cent interest each to Mr. Gobbak, Mr. Kumar and Ms. Nagoree.

In another case, the Commission on Friday asked the Postal Department to pay compensation for its failure to return the money sent to it for depositing in a senior citizens’ scheme.

A.S. Desai of Annapurneshwari Nagar issued a cheque for Rs. 2 lakh on November 25, 2004 in favour Sub-Post Master, Mukhya Dak Ghar, Basaveshwaranagar, for depositing it in the senior citizen scheme. The cheque was encashed on November 30, 2006, which, according to Senior Citizens Saving Scheme (Amendment) Rules 2004, was considered as the date of deposit.

The Sub-Post Master in July 2006 informed Mr. Desai that he was not entitled to deposit the amount under the scheme as it was made after November 26, 2006, the date on which the rules came into force. Since Mr. Desai had already deposited the amount a day before the deadline, he filed a complaint before the 2nd Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore Urban. In its order, the district forum directed the Postal Department to return the deposit amount to Mr. Desai with interest.

The Postal Department went on appeal. Upholding the decision of District Consumer Forum, the State Commission said the Sub-Post Master ought to have returned the cheque or refunded the amount to Mr. Desai if he was not entitled to deposit the amount. He “would have deposited the amount in a fixed deposit or invested in any business and he would have earned more interest or profit ...”, the Commission noted.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Illegal structures: Karnataka extends deadline to March 31
Improving their reading habits, writing skills
Only youth can reform politics: Siddaramaiah
Farmers hope for better cotton yield
SEZ promoter files petition against Goa
Stern unity call sounded at BJP State executive meet
Tailor-made to teach others
Artisans to be trained to take on Chinese products
Schoolgirl dies of brain fever
Layout promoter asked to refund advance
Dropping babies: it is ’divine fall’ for these parents
Fear grips residents of Betta Hosapura village
Salary grant to 26 colleges withheld
Panel looking into ARC reports: Moily
Award for recovering money from fraudsters
121 films line up for Biffes
High Court adjourns contempt plea

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu