DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. _98_ OF ___2016
DATE OF FILING : 8.9.2016 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: _15.5.2018_
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker
COMPLAINANT : Smt. Tripti Chakraborty, wife of Sri Smritish Chakraborty of Hiland Park, 4B2, Tower Bay, 1925 Chak Garia, Kolkata – 94, P.S Survey Park.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. M/s Broadway Realtors Private Limited, P-593, Purna Das Road, P.S Lake Road, Kolkata – 29.
2. Mr. Arun Kumar Sarkar, Managing Director of M/s Broadway Realtors Private Limited, P-593, Purna Das Road, P.S Lake Road,Kol-29.
________________________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
Briefly stated the facts of the complainant are that O.P nos. 1and 2 are the developers . They agreed to sell a plot of land to the complainant on condition to develop the same. An agreement for sale was also executed on 23.5.2008 by and between them and by virtue of that agreement, the complainant paid the entire consideration money i.e Rs.1,40,000/- to O.P-2 ,but O.P-2 did not make any allotment, nor did he make any development of the plot, nor did he cause delivery of possession of the plot to the complainant, nor did he cause registration for the said plot in favour of the complainant. Therefore, complainant has filed the instant case ,praying for delivery of possession of the said plot to him with completion of registration etc. in default to refund the consideration money with interest and payment of compensation etc.
The O.Ps hagve been contesting the case by filing written statement, wherein it is contended inter alia that the land was acquired by the O.P-2. But all the lands of the project have not been acquired by him and ,therefore, he could not deliver the possession of the plot to the complainant. According to him, he asked the complainant to take another plot ,but the complainant refused to do so. He further contends that there was no provision for construction of any building upon the case plot and the transaction was a sale simpliciter. So, to him, the complaint is not maintainable in Law. He further contends that the complainant has made the investment by purchasing the plot for earning profit and, therefore, the instant complaint is not also maintainable in law.
Upon the averments of the parties following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Are the O.Ps guilty of deficiency in service as alleged?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Both the parties have led their Evidences on affidavit which are kept in the record for consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 & 2 :-
Already heard the submissions of Ld. Lawyers ,appearing for both the parties. Perused the materials on record.
Considered all these.
It is admitted fact that an agreement for sale was executed by O.P-2 in favour of the complainant on 23.5.2008 and by virtue of that agreement for sale, the complainant also paid the entire consideration price i.e Rs.1,40,000/- to O.P-2.
On perusal of the agreement for sale it is found that the O.P-2 agreed to deliver possession of the developed plot to the complainant within 22.5.2011. But the condition of said agreement has not been fulfilled by O.P-2 and thus O.P-2 has made a deficiency in service . It is contended on behalf of the O.P-2 that the transaction was a sale simpliciter as there was no provision for any construction included in the agreement for sale. We are unable to concur with this submission of the O.Ps. The O.P-2 agreed to develop the land by way of filling the plot etc. and thereafter to sell the said land to the complainant. So, the provision of service is involved therein and such kind of transaction can never be called a sale simpliciter. The instant complaint is amply maintainable for the reasons that the sale was not a sale simpliciter. The agreement was executed in 2008 and now it is 2018. 10 years have already expired and the complainant has suffered much more loss due to appreciation in value of land. The O.P-2 will have to compensate the said loss suffered by the complainant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that it will be better to refund the consideration price to the complainant by O.P-2 with simple interest thereon. The order is passed accordingly.
Point nos. 1 and 2 are thus disposed of in favour of the complainant.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is decreed on contest against both the O.Ps with cost of Rs.5000/- only.
Both the O.Ps, who will remain jointly and severally liable for making payment to the complainant, are directed to refund consideration price of Rs.1,40,000/- to the complainant with simple interest @10% p.a from the date of payment till full realization thereof within a month of this order.
They are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for loss suffered by the complainant due to escalation of the value of the land and for harassment along with cost as referred to above within a month of this order, failing which the amounts of compensation and cost will also 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
