.DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,

 KOLKATA-700 0144

      C.C. CASE NO. _19_ OF ___2018

DATE OF FILING : 22.2.2018    DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  _4.7.2018_

Present                 :   President       :   Ananta Kumar Kapri

                                 Member(s)    :    Subrata Sarker  & Jhunu Prasad

COMPLAINANT        : Arundhati Goswami, wife of Subhendu Goswami of 10/5, Central Park, Jadavpur, Kolkata – 700 032.

• VERSUS  -

O.P/O.Ps                    :  1. M/s  Sampark Land Developers Private Limited, 22A, Anil Roy Road, P.S Ballygunge, Kolkata – 700 029, represented by

                                  a) Om Prakash Tulsian

                                  b) Sk. Mokbul Hossain

                                  2.   Om Prakash Tulsian

                                  3.  Sk. Mokbul Hossain

                                   Both of 22A, Anil Roy Road, P.S Lake, Kolkata-700 029.

_______________________________________________________________________

                                                J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

Sri Ananta Kumar  Kapri, President

                     The nub of the facts leading to the filing of the instant case by the complainant is that O.Ps being developers of a project named “Baruipur Bloom Field “entered into a sale agreement dated 12.6.2012 with the complainant and thereby agreed to sale a plot of land as succinctly described in Schedule B to the complaint for a total consideration price of Rs.8,40,000/-. Complainant paid Rs.2,52,000/- as earnest money and the balance consideration price of Rs.5,88,000/-  was to be paid by 48 equal monthly installments of Rs.12,250/- each , the first of which was payable in the month of May, 2012 and thereafter by every month till February, 2016. Thus, the complainant paid Rs.6,68, 500/-  in  total to the O.Ps, but the O.Ps made no development of the land and, therefore, the complainant stopped payment of installments. Repeated requests of the complainant to hand over possession of the case plot to the O.Ps ended in smoke. Now, the complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.6,68,500/- with interest thereon and compensation etc. Hence, the case.

                    The O.Ps entered appearance in this case; but ,thereafter they did not file any written version of their statement. Hence, the case is heard exparte against them.

                    Upon the averments of the parties following points are formulated for consideration.

POINT FOR DETERMINATION

1. Are  the O.Ps guilty of deficiency in service  as alleged by the complainant?
2. Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?

EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES

The complainant has filed evidences on affidavit along with photocopies of the documents relied upon by him. All these are kept in the record for consideration.

DECISION WITH REASONS

Point no.1 & 2 :

The complainant has stated on affidavit that he made an agreement for sale on 12.6.2012 with the O.Ps and that the O.Ps agreed to sell the land for a total consideration price of Rs.8,40,000/- . It is also stated by him that he has paid Rs.6,68,500/- to the O.Ps by 37 EMIs including the earnest money. The project was to be completed within February, 2016. The complainant made several visits to the project site and came to find that no development whatsoever had been made by the developers. Last visit was made by him on January, 2018 and he found no sign of development on the plot of land by the developers. So, he has prayed for refund of consideration money paid to the O.Ps. All these are transpiring in the evidence of the complainant and these unchallenged evidences go to establish that the developers have not acted in terms of the agreement made by them with the complainant. It goes to establish that the developers have failed to fulfill their obligations in terms of the sale agreement dated 12.6.2012. Inability to fulfill the terms of the agreement is undoubtedly an act of deficiency in service on the part of the developers. The complainant is entitled to get refund of the money paid by him to the developers .

The complainant is also entitled to get the return of the money paid by him by virtue of Clause 5 of Sale Agreement. Clause 5 of the Sale Agreement makes it clear that if the vendors fail to do the development work; in that event, the vendor will return all the amounts paid by the purchaser to him along with 12% interest p.A to the purchaser on all amounts as paid by the purchaser from the date of its receipt. In view of the aforesaid provisions of the said agreement, it is found that the complainant is also entitled to get the refund of his money with interest @12% p.a .

Both the points are thus answered in favour of the complainant.

In the result, the case succeeds.

                        ORDERED

That the complaint case be and the same is decreed exparte against the O.Ps with cost of Rs. 5000/-.

The O.Ps, who will remain jointly and severally liable, are directed to make payment of Rs.6,68,500/- to the complainant with interest @12% p.a as agreed upon between the parties to be paid from the date of acceptance of the respective amounts till full realization thereof.

The O.Ps are also directed, jointly and severally, to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for price hike of land, mental anguish and harassment of the complainant within a month of this order, failing which, the compensation amount and the amount of cost will bear interest @10% p.a till full realization thereof.

     Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.   

                                                                                                                   President

I / We agree

                                       Member                                   Member                                                      

Dictated and corrected by me

                   President