West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/382/2015

1. Smt. Nandita Mukherjee, W/O Sri Subhendu Sekhar Mukherjee. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. M/S. ABS Land Development and Construction Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

15 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , JUDGES’ COURT, ALIPORE KOLKATA-700 027

 

C.C. CASE NO. _382   OF ___2015____

 

DATE OF FILING : 24.8.2015     DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 15.07.2016.

Present                        :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :   Smt.  Sharmi Basu                               

 

COMPLAINANT                  :   1. Smt. Nandita Mukherjee,w/o Sri Suibhyendu Sekhar Mukherjee

                                                    2.  Rupsha Mukherjee,d/o Sri Subhendu Sekhar Mukherjee

                                                    Both of Flat A-1, Suchana Apartment, 235/2A/1, N.S.C Bose

                                                    Road,Kolkata - 47

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                                :     1. M/s ABS Land Development Construction Pvt. Ltd. 13/B, Jatin Das Road, P.S. Tollygunge, Kolkata – 29

                                                    2.     Mr. Tapan Ghosh, Managing Director, ABS Land Development & Construction Pvt. Ltd. 13/B, Jatin Das Road, P.S. Tollygunge, Kol-29

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G   M  E  N  T

            Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member

             In a nutshell the case of the complainants is that the complainants were invited to purchase plot of land by the O.Ps at their proposed project being “Baruipur Enclave” by showing colourful brochures and/or layout of plots and thereby complainants had entered into an agreement for sle with the O.P on 30^th May, 2012 for purchasing a piece and parcel of land measuring about 1440 saq.ft which is equivalent to two cottahs under Dag no.140, Khatian no.261 , J.L. no.154 , Mouza-Pirkhali, P.S. Bishnupur, within the jurisdiction of Julpia Gram Panchayet kbnown and identified as Plot no.B1 (Block-B) under the jurisdiction of ADSR-Bishnupur, DSR-Alipore IV in the District of South 24-Parganas at the total consideration of Rs.2,80,000/- only. Complainants paid total considrtation amount of Rs.2,80,000/- to the O.Ps ,for which O.Ps issued full and final payment receipt on 30^th May, 2014 in favour of the complainant. Despite receiving full consideration amount agiasnt the allotted plot and repeated requests and demands made by the complainants, the O.Ps intentionally failed and/or neglected to complete the registration and complete the sale and delivery of the said property in favour of the complainants. Hence, this case praying for direction upon the O.Ps to hand over the property to the complainants and register the same in favour of the complainants as per agreement for sale dated 30.5.2012 or alternatively return back total consideration amount of Rs.2,80,000/-  , compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards harassment, mental tension and agony, cost of Rs.10,000/- etc.

            The O.Ps appeared by filing written version denying all the material allegations and inter alia stated that they are ready and willing to pay back the amount which was deposited by the complainant to the O.Ps towards the plot in question.

 

 

 

Points for Decision

1. Whether the complainant is a Consumer or not.
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps or not.
3. Whether the complainant is eligible to get relief as prayed for partly or fully.

Decision with reasons

            After scrutinizing vividly the complaint, written version , evidence filed by  the complainants and all the documents brought before this Forum and hearing case of the complainants and O.Ps it appears that as the  complainants paid the total consideration amount of the plot in question to the O.Ps, developer, they are the consumers and the O.Ps are service providers  undr the purvidw of Secrtion2(1)(d)(ii) and Section 2(1)(o ) of the C.P Act, 1986.

            Admittedly , the complainants paid the total consideration amount woards the plot in question to the O.Ps but O.Ps are miserably failed to hand over the developed plot to the complainants nor execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in respect of the plot in question in favour fo the complainants till the date of hearing of the argument i.e. O.Ps have miserably failed to their aforesaid duties within a moderate period ,even after receiving the total amount .

            In this regard we are highlighting the recent valuable decision of Hon’ble Nation Commission  decided in 2015(3) CPR 562 (NC) page 562 where Hon’ble National Commission has been pleased to observed that it is trite that the word “Compensation” is of very wide connotation. It not only constitutes actual loss, it includes expected loss in future. In Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta, explaining the width and scope of the powers conferred on the Consumer For a under the Act the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the Commission has been vested with jurisdiction to award value of goods or services and determine compensation for any loss or damage wsuffered by a consumer, which in law is otherwise included in wide meaning of compensation. The Consumer For a is entitled to award not only the value of the goods or services but also to compensate a consumr for the injustice suffered by him due to deficiency in service in sale of goods or rendering of service, as the case may be.

            Therefore,taking an overall view of the matter and bearing in mind the ract that cost of the shares as on the date of filing of the complaint along with interest @12% p.a has already been awarded by the State Commission, in our opinion, ends of justice would be served if an additional lump sum compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- is awarded in favour of the petitioner and agaisnt respondent no.1 company in addition to the amount already awarded by the State Commission.

            Resultantly, we allow the Revision petition and direct that the aforesaid additional compensation shall be paid by respondent no.1 Company to the petitioner, within 4 weeks of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner would also be entitled to costs, quantified at Rs.20,000/-.

            In this regard we are also keeping in mind the landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the remarkable case of Lucknow Development Authority Vs.M.K. Gupta, AIR 1994 SC ,whrein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to remark regarding quantum of compensation that “The word compensation is again of very wide connotation. It has not been defined in the Act. According to dictionary it means “Compensating or being compensated; thing given as recompense;. In legal sense it may constitute actual loss or expected loss or may extend to physical ,mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss… “The provision enables a consumer to claim any injustice done to him”. The Commission or the Forum in the Act is thus entitled to award not only value of the goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him”.

            Therefore, in the light of above discussion we have no hesitation to hold that the O.Ps have committed not only deficiency in service under section 2(1)(g) and 2(1)(o) of the C.P Act, 1986 but also liable for committing unfair trade practice under the provision of section 2(1)® of the C.P Act, 1986 and liable to not only refund the consideration money but also to aptly compensate the complainant.

            Hence,

                                                                        Ordered

That the case be and the same is allowed on contest with cost.

The O.Ps are directed to refund the consideration money of the plot in question amounting to Rs.2,80,000/- along with interest @12% p.a from 30.5.2014 till full and final payment to the complainant and also to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which penal @10% p.a will be imposed upon the O.Ps after the stipulated period is over till its realization.

Let a plain copy of Judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rule.

 

                                    Member                                                                                   President                                

 

Dictated and corrected by me

 

 

                        Member

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The judgment in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

                                   

                                                                        Ordered

That the case be and the same is allowed on contest with cost.

The O.Ps are directed to refund the consideration money of the plot in question amounting to Rs.2,80,000/- along with interest @12% p.a from 30.5.2014 till full and final payment to the complainant and also to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which penal @10% p.a will be imposed upon the O.Ps after the stipulated period is over till its realization.

 

Member                                                                                   President