DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS,

AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144

      C.C. CASE NO. 153 OF 2017

DATE OF FILING: 05/12/2017    DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  28/03/2018

Present                      :   President       :   Ananta Kumar Kapri

                                        Member(s)    :     Subrata Sarker  & Jhunu Prasad                                       

COMPLAINANT              :  Shyamadas Seal, 87B/10, Bose Pukur Road, P.O. & P.S – Kasba, Kolkata – 700 042

• VERSUS  -

O.P/O.Ps                         :  M/s. D.K. Land Development & Construction Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AADCD 1588L) Regd. Office:  617A Diamond Harbour Road, Kadamtala Bazar, Kolkata – 700 063. Corp. Office – 423D, 3^rd Floor, Motilal Gupta Road, Kolkata – 700 082

_____________________________________________________________________________________

                                                                                J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

Sri Ananta Kumar  Kapri, President

        By virtue of verbal agreement concluded between the Complainant and O.P. – Co. the complainant agreed to purchase a plot of land measuring 3 cottahs succinctly described in allotment letter filed by the complainant herein for a consideration price of Rs. 1, 80,000. The Complainant paid 30 % of the consideration price, i.e. Rs. 55,000 within 16/02/13 in terms of the agreement and letter of allotment was accordingly issued to him on 18/05/13. The remaining amount of Rs. 1, 25,000 was to be paid in 52 monthly installment of Rs. 2,404 per month. He i.e. the Complainant has thus paid 47 installments through NEFT, totaling into Rs. 1, 12,988. Thereafter, one fine morning i.e. on  09/03/17, the Complainant came to know that the office of O.P. – Co. has been shifted to elsewhere. Since then, he has failed to establish any contact with the O.P. Now, the Complainant prays for refund of money paid and also for payment of compensation etc. Hence, this case.

       Service of notice upon the O.P. is presumed relying upon the ratio of M/S Madan & Co. vs. Wajir Jaivir (AIR 1989 SC 630) and Smt. Renuka Basak vs. Bimal Poddar, 2006 (2) ICC at 184. But the O.P. does not turn up to contest the case and therefore the case is heard ex-parte against him.

                                                       EVIDENCE OF THE COMPLAINANT

       Evidence on affidavit is filed by the Complainant. He has filed on documents which are marked as exhibit no. 1 to 7, as detailed in his affidavit-in-chief.

                                                        DECISION WITH REASONS

       In the facts and circumstances narrated above, it is to be seen whether the O.P. has committed any act of deficiency in service. It is the case of the Complainant that he has paid Rs. 1, 67,988 to the O.P. month by month along with the booking of land. It is further case of the Complainant that the O.P. has got his office shifted to an unknown place without going any kind of intimation to him. He came to know about such shift of his office on 09/03/17 and since then the Complainant has not been able to establish any kind of contacts with the O.P. all these facts are stated by the Complainant in his Affidavit-in chief and all these statements have remained un-rebutted. That the Complainant has made payment of Rs. 1, 67,988 stands proved by exhibit no. 1 to 6 annexed with Affidavit- in chief filed by the complainant. Complainant has also filed a letter of allotment, vide exhibit 7 and this exhibit also goes to prove that one plot has been allotted to the complainant by the O.P. The O.P. has got his business office shifted to an unknown place and the address of that place has not been supplied to the complainant who is an intending purchaser of the plot of land from the O.P. The O.P should have informed the Complainant of the alteration of the address of his place of business but he did not do so, nor did he give any kind of intimation to the complainant before doing work of shifting of his office. This is not all. He has also ceased to have any kind of truck with the Complainant and this seems to have been done by him for the purpose of avoiding his liability towards this Complainant. Be that is it may, the O.P. has caused deficiency in service. Failure to keep contact with the Complainant and the act of closure of office surreptitiously without giving any prior intimation to the Complainant is undoubtedly an act of deficiency in service, which has caused the Complainant to suffer a lot of harassment and mental agony. Complainant is, therefore, entitled to relief which is laid down as here under.

       In the result, the case succeeds.

       Hence,

                                                 ORDERED

      That the complaint case be and the same is decreed exparte against the O.P. with a cost of Rs. 5,000.

The O.P. is directed to refund Rs. 1, 67,988 with 9% interest to be paid from the date of respective payment of installment till full realization of decreed amount and also to pay Rs. 50,000 compensation for harassment and mental agony to the Complainant along with Rs. 5,000 litigation cost as referred to above, within a month of this order, failing which the compensation amount and the cost amount will bear interest at the rate of 9% per annum till full realization thereof.

     Let a copy of the order be given free of cost to both the parties.

                                                                                                          President

We / I   agree.

                               Member               Member

Dictated and Corrected by me

            President