DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. _87_ OF ___2016_
DATE OF FILING : 24.8.2016 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:11.09.2017
Present : President : Udayan Mukhopadhyay
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker & Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : 1. Shri Sankhadeep Adhikari, son of Shri Kallol Adhikari of 1st floor, 3, Greenland, Mukundapur, P.S Purba Jadavpur, Kolkata -99
Through Consumers and Elderlys’Rights protection Society, Registration no. S/IL/No 573340 of 2008-2009 having its registgered office at 4H, Shanagar Road, P.S Tollygunge, Kolkata – 26.
-VERSUS -
O.P/O.Ps : 1. M/s Walden Estate Ltd. Regd. Office at A/64, Diamond Park, P.O Joka, P.S Haridevpur, P.S Bishnupur, South 24-Parganas, Kol-104.
2. Shri Dipankar Naskar, Managing Director, M/s Walden Estate Ltd. Naskar Para, Daulatpur, P.S Bishnupur, Kolkata – 104.
3. Manager, M/s Walden Estates Ltd. 2nd floor, 25/1B, Diamond Harbour Road, Barisa Janakalyan, P.S Thakurpukur, South 24-Parganas, Kolkata – 8.
_______________________________________________________________________
J U D G E M E N T
Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President
The short case of the complainant is that he has booked one plot bearing no.630 of Joka New Town project of O.Ps on 30.4.2014 on payment of Rs.2,27,000/- out of total consideration of Rs.8,75,000/-. It has claimed that on receipt of the said booking money O.Ps supplied the brochure containing the terms and conditions for sale of plot of land of Joka New Town Project and after substantial delay agreement for sale was signed and duly notarized on 8.12.2014 by and between the O.P-2 and the complainant. After that O.Ps supplied title deed of the land to be sold to the complainant and complainant came to know on that date that the land in respect of which Sali agreement has been signed is a Sali land and the character of the said land needs to be converted into Bastu for developing and plotting as homestead and O.Ps suppressed the said fact at the time of booking of the plot . Complainant has claimed that he has paid Rs.4,70,000/- inclusive of booking money of of Rs.2,70,000/-and continued installment of Rs.27000/- each starting from 13.6.2014 upto 19.2.2015. But land in question was not developed with necessary infrastructure and transferred the same to the complainant within the stipulated period.
So, complainant decided to surrender the land and take back the money he paid and as such stopped further payment of installment of consideration and wrote to O.p-1 on 31.3.2015 incorporating the fact as it will appear from the same intimating that he lost his interest about the deal and requested to refund money he invested till that date, which was duly acknowledged by the O.Ps on 5.4.2015. But the O.Ps did not bother to pay heed to it. Hence, the O.Ps made deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and prays for refund of Rs.4,70,000/-with interest 12% p.a and compensation of Rs.1 lac and damages Rs.50,000/- ,litigation cost Rs.10,000/-.
The O.Ps contested the case by filing written version and has stated that the case is not maintainable and this case was filed for harassing the O.ps and O.ps have denied and disputed all the allegations save and except which are matters of record.
The positive case of the O.Ps is that agreement for sale was entered into by and between the O.P-2 and the complainant. But it is denied that there was substantial delay in the same and even if there was any delay it was due the complainant. It has claimed that no suppression was made and complainant was aware regarding the investment of the land and after fully satisfied agreed to purchase the same. So, there was no laches on the part of the O.Ps. It has claimed that this Forum has no jurisdiction as to the subject matter because substantial question of transfer of land , which is immovable property, is involved and only competent Civil Court can entertain the same and hence prays for dismissal of the case.
Points for decision in this case is whether the O.Ps made any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by not delivering the plot of land after developing the same and whether Consumer Forum has any jurisdiction or not.
Decision with reasons
At the outset it must be stated that O.Ps made an agreement for sale on 8.12.2014 where it has been specifically mentioned “And developing the entire acquired land into a township project namely Joka New Town Township with plotted lands, roads, parks, lakes and various facilities and amenities as disclosed in the brochure published for the circulation to the interested people buying the same. From the brochure it has mentioned that within 18months first phase will be handed over and second phase will be handed over within 36 months . So, form the brochure as well as from the agreement for sale it has specifically mentioned that O.Ps developed the land that is why when there is a case of development this bench has enough power to entertain the case. So, we hold that Consumer Court has enough jurisdiction and this issue is decided in favour of the complainant against the O.Ps.
Regarding first issue, admittedly agreement was made and complainant paid Rs.4,70,000/- in all and admittedly within 18 months the land was neither developed nor handed over and complainant has claimed that the character of the land was Sali. So, until and unless it was converted into Bastu how the lots of dream for constructing the house can be fulfilled by the intending purchasers. So, this is a glaring example of unfair trade practice regarding suppression of material facts.
For argument sake if we hold that the complainant was aware about the character of the land as Sali, but even then when commitment was given publishing the brochure that development will be made and construction can be done by the complainant by raising their own house, can it be possible without converting the land, that is a glaring example of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for suppressing the material facts and even then it was not converted. Complainant may be a layman but developers ,O.Ps are not layman. They wanted to squeeze money by false advertisement when the characteristic of the land are not made for bastu on the date of advertisement. All these things clearly suggests that O.Ps jointly and/or severally made deficiency of service and unfair trade practice in light of the observation made in above.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 is allowed on contest against the O.Ps with cost.
The O.Ps are directed jointly and/or severally to refund Rs.4,70,000/- to the complainant along with 10% interest from the date of filing this case till its realization, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and to pay cost of Rs.10,000/- within 45 days from the date of this order.
Prayer for damage is hereby refused.
The O.Ps have to comply the order within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which complainant is at liberty to execute the order through this Forum.
Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the O.P through speed post.
Member Member President
Dictated and corrected by me
President
The judgment in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,
Ordered
That the application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 is allowed on contest against the O.Ps with cost.
The O.Ps are directed jointly and/or severally to refund Rs.4,70,000/- to the complainant along with 10% interest from the date of filing this case till its realization, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and to pay cost of Rs.10,000/- within 45 days from the date of this order.
Prayer for damage is hereby refused.
The O.Ps have to comply the order within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which complainant is at liberty to execute the order through this Forum.
Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the O.P through speed post.
Member Member President
