Holding the act of builder firms signing an agreement of sale of a flat in a residential apartment with a third party during the subsistence of the earlier agreement as a deficiency in service, the Dakshina Kannada District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed the two firms to return the agreement amount to the first party.

In the complaint to the commission, Ananada Sanil, a resident of Kulai, said he signed with P. Krishnaraj Mayya, managing partner of Aashirwad Infra Developers, and Rohan Monterio, managing director of Property Infra Tech India Pvt. Ltd., an agreement of sale of flat No. 306 of Zorian apartment on November 30, 2021. Out of the total sale consideration of ₹30 lakh, he paid ₹20 lakh by way of cheques and agreed to pay the remaining amount within three months at the time of registration of sale deed.

Both firms kept on delaying the registration of the sale deed. On enquiry, Mr. Sanil found that the two firms had clandestinely signed an agreement of sale with respect to the same flat with Shivarama D. Shetty and Sowmy S. Shetty on January 10, 2022, and had received ₹25 lakh from them. Admitting the signing of the second agreement of sale, the two firms gave the complainant a cheque for ₹20 lakh, which got dishonoured on March 2, 2024, for “insufficient funds”.

Mr. Sanil said the two building firms have committed fraud against him and caused a deficiency in service. Hence, he sought compensation from the commission.

Partly allowing the complaint, the commission comprising president Somashekarappa Handigol and member H.G. Sharadamma, in their judgment dated July 22, said the agreement of sale dated November 30, 2021, was signed by the two firms and hence both were liable to pay relief to Mr. Sanil for deficiency in their service. Aashirwad Infra Developers paid Mr. Sanil ₹2 lakh on September 11, 2024.

The commission directed the two firms to jointly return the balance sale consideration amount with 6% interest a year. The two firms were also asked to pay ₹20,000 as compensation for deficiency in service and ₹5,000 towards litigation costs.