DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS,
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 144
C.C. CASE NO. 26 OF 2019
DATE OF FILING: 22.2.2019 DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 25/9/2019
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member : Jhunu Prasad & Jagadish Chandra Barman
COMPLAINANT : Smt. Chaina Majumdar, wife of Samir Kumar Majumdar of E-94/1, Baghajatin, P.S Patuli, Kolkata -86.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. M/s Desire Agro Resorts Development Pvt. Ltd. P-85, Lake Road, P.O Sarat Bose Road, P.S Rabindra Sarovar, Kolkata-29.
2. Shri Ashok Kumar Bose, son of late Amiya Kumar Bose , Managing Director of M/s Desire Agro Resorts Development Pvt. Ltd. 23, West Road, P.S Kasba, Kolkata- 75
3. Shri Paritosh Chakraborty, son of late Bankim Chakraborty of 301/1, K.K Majumder Road, Kolkata-75.
_______________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
Failure or inability to deliver the possession of the land of the project on the part of the O.P/developers to the complainant within the stipulated period, the complainant has filed the instant case under section 12, C.P Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P/developers.
Facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follows.
The complainant was tempted by the wide propaganda of the O.P company that a developed land would be sold and the consideration price would have to be paid through instalments of 36 months and having been so tempted, he i.e the complainant booked a plot of land measuring about 2 cattah 8 chittak in the dream project “Dakshinayan II -20”. The O.P company assured the complainant to develop the land by making drains, roads, water supply and other amenities within a very short period. But, to her utter dismay and frustration the complainant came to see that no development whatsoever has been made by the O.P company to the land sought to be purchased by her. She has paid Rs.1,37,500/- by way of installments. In addition to that, registration fee and stamp duty have also been paid by her to the O.P/developer. But the O.P has neither registered the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant, nor has delivered the physical possession of the land to the complainant, even there has been no development of land undertaken by the O.P in terms of the agreement. So, the complainant has prayed for delivery of physical possession of the land or in the alternative ,for refund of compensation etc. Hence, this case.
The O.Ps have filed written statement, wherein, the allegation of the complainant is altogether denied. It is denied by the O.Ps that they received any consideration price from the complainant or that they gave any commitment to the complainant for providing developed land to her after getting the same registered in her name. But, in BNA filed by them it is admitted by them that they have received the consideration price from the complainant and that they are still ready and willing to refund the consideration price to the complainant.
Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Are the O.Ps guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief of reliefs as prayed for?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Evidence on affidavit is led by the complainant. The written version filed by the O.Ps is treated as their evidence vide their petition dated 31.7.2019. BNA is filed by the O.Ps and the same is kept in the record after consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 & 2 :
A scrutiny of the facts and materials as transpiring on record reveals that the O.P company has not been able to fulfill the terms and conditions of the agreement which was verbally reached by them with the complainant. It is admitted that the O.Ps have received Rs.1,37,500/- in 36 installments from the complainant for selling a plot of land to the complainant after having made certain development works on that land. The land has not yet been developed by the O.Ps .Negligence and delay in the development of land and receiving consideration price thereof without undertaking development work is nothing but deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. There is no document filed on record by the complainant to show that she paid any amount to the O.Ps on account of registration fee and stamp duty. The O.Ps are still ready and willing to refund the amount of money received by them from the complainant.
Regards being had to all these circumstances, we are of the opinion that it will be far better to direct the O.Ps/developers to refund the consideration price received by them to the complainant with interest.
Ex-consequenti, the case succeeds.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.Ps with a cost of Rs.10,000/-.
The O.Ps who shall remain jointly and severally liable for payment to the complainant, are directed to pay Rs.1,37,500/- as refund amount to the complainant with interest @10% p.a from the respective date of payment till full realization thereof within a month of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this award through the machinery of the Forum. .
Registrar-In-Charge of this Forum is directed to send a copy of the judgment free of cost at once to the parties concerned by speed post.
President
I / We agree
Member Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
