DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,

 KOLKATA-700 0144

      C.C. CASE NO. __65_ _ OF ___2018

DATE OF FILING :_23.5.2018         DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  19.9.2018

Present                 :   President       :   Ananta Kumar Kapri

                                 Member(s)    :    Subrata Sarker   & Jhunu Prasad

COMPLAINANT   :              Sk. Sirajuddin @ Siraj Sk. , son of Sahad Sk. Village- Gobindapur Kalicharanpur Gangarampur, Purkait & Santra Para, P.S Bishnupur, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-743503.

•  VERSUS  -

O.P/O.Ps                    : 1. M/s Chandrasekhar Polymer Co. Private Limited.

                                    2. Sri Chandra Sekhar Pal, son of late Biswanath Pal

                                    3. Sri Somenath Pal, son of Chandrasekhar Pal

                                    All 1 to 3 are at Village Khastika, P.O Bakhrahat, P.S Bishnupur, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-743377.

                                   4.  Sri Swapan Kumar Dutta  ( Deceased)

                                   5.  Bikash Dutta

                                   6.  Sri  Pintu Dutta

                                   7.  Smt. Maumitya Dutta (Chandra) , wife of Sri Pradip Chandra

                                   8.  Smt. Manjusri Dutta, wife of late Sankhanath Dutta

                                   9.  Smt. Mousumi Dutta (Banu),w/o late Biplab Banu,d/o late Sankhanath Dutta.

                                  10.Smt. Chandra Dutta, d/o late Samir Dutta

                                  11.  Sri Sutanu Dutta, son of late Prabir Dutta

                                  12.  Smt. Alochaya Dutta, wife of late Prabir Dutta

                                  All 4 to 12 are of Khastika, P.O Bakhrahat, P.S Bishnupur, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-743377.

_______________________________________________________________________

                                                J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

Sri Ananta Kumar  Kapri, President

                   Dishonour of cheque issued by the O.P developer in favour of the complainant has galvanized the complainant to file the instant case under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps/developers i.e O.P nos. 1,2 and 3.

                   Facts leading to the filing of the instant case by the complainant may be epitomized as follows.

                   O.P nos. 1,2 and 3 are developers carrying on real estate business . O.P nos. 4 to 12 are land owners. A development agreement was effected on 21.3.2014 between the developer and the land owners. By virtue of the said development agreement, the developers also raised a G+3 multi storied building on the land described in the schedule A to the complaint. Thereafter one sale agreement was effected on 4.5.2016 between the complainant and the developers and thereby the developers agreed to sell a flat as succinctly described in Schedule B to the petition of complaint for a total consideration price of Rs.12, 50,000/-. The complainant paid Rs.3,15,000/- in all on different dates. The developers assured the complainant to deliver possession of the subject flat and also to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of that flat in favour of the complainant within 90 days of the date of execution of sale agreement dated 4.5.2016. But, possession of the subject flat was not delivered and the registration of the said flat also remained a far cry. Therefore, the complainant demanded return of the money paid to the developers and the developers also agreed to return the same. Two cheques dated 6.6.2017 and 14.12.2017 amounting to Rs.4 lac were handed over to the complainant by the developers. Those cheques were dishonoured for insufficient fund in the account of the developers and ,therefore, the complainant has filed the instant case praying for refund of Rs.3,15,000/- , compensation of Rs.5 lacs for mental injury and harassment and also for litigation cost. Hence, this case.

               O.P-4 is dead and ,therefore, his name is deleted from the petition of complaint. Notice of the case is served against all other O.Ps vide postal track report ,kept in the record. The said O.Ps have not turned up to contest the case and ,therefore, the case is heard exparte against them.

               Evidence on affidavit is filed by the complainant along with the documents relied upon by him. All these are kept in the record after consideration.

DECISION WITH REASONS

               The question which requires for consideration now is whether the O.P/developers i.e O.P nos. 1,2 and 3 are guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant .

                The complainant has alleged that the two chques were issued by the developers in his favour and those cheques were returned dishonoured from his banker. A copy of sale agreement dated 4.5.2016 is filed on behalf of the complainant and it is found there from that the O.Ps/developers agreed to deliver the possession of the case flat to the complainant within 90 days from the date of execution of the agreement dated 4.5.2016. The developer could not deliver possession of the flat to the complainant and, therefore, it is none but the developers who have made default  in the terms of the agreement and, therefore, the complainant is entitled to get back the money already paid by him to the developers. The developers also returned the money by delivering of cheques to the complainant. But those cheques were dishonoured by the banker of the complainant.

                    All these facts stand proved on the face of the record and all these facts are not being challenged by the O.Ps/developers. Relying upon the unchallenged evidence of the complainant, we feel no hesitation to say that the dishonor of cheques for insufficient fund in the account of the drawer of cheque is undoubtedly an act of deficiency in service on the part of the drawers and as such, the O.Ps/developers i.e O.P nos. 1,2 and 3 are held guilty of deficiency in service for not keeping sufficient fund in their account to honour the cheques issued by them in favour of the complainant. They will have to return the money received by them to the complainant along with interest  from the date of receipt to the date of full payment thereof.

                  In consequence , the case succeeds.  

               Hence,

ORDERED

             That the complaint case be and the same is decreed exparte against the O.Ps/Developers i.e O.P nos. 1,2 and 3 with cost of Rs.10,000/-, and dismissed exparte against the rest of the O.Ps  without cost.

              The O.P nos. 1,2 and 3 ,who will remain jointly and severally liable for making payment to the complainant, are directed to pay Rs.3,15,000/- to the complainant with penal interest @12% p.a from the date of each payment till full realization thereof.

              No extra compensation is ,however, awarded to the complainant for harassment and mental agony allegedly suffered by the complainant.

    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