DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM                                                                                SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS,                                                                                                                   AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 144                                                                                    .                                          C.C.  CASE NO. 75 OF 2016

DATE OF FILING: 22.07.2016                                                    DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 18.10.2019   

Present                      :   President       :   Ananta Kumar Kapri

                                        Member       :     Jhunu Prasad 

    Member       :     Jagadish Chandra Barman                                         

COMPLAINANT              :  SRI NABIN CHANDRA SARKAR, S/O – Late Proffulla Kumar Sarkar, Residing at 10, Kalitala Road, Haltu, P.S. – Garfa, Kolkata – 700 078. 

• VERSUS   -

O.P/O.Ps                         :  1. SRI RABINDRANATH DEY (Director of Vibgyor Allied Infrastructure Limited), C/O – Shambhunath Dey, Residing at 13/1/1, Kalidas Singha Lane, Kolkata – 700 009.

                                               2. VIBGYOR ALLIED INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, Having its registered office at Vibgyor Tower, 87, Dr. Suresh Sarkar Road, Kolkata – 700 014.

                                           Represented by its director Sri Rabindranath Dey and others under mentioned directors.                                                

3. RAJA BHADRA (Director of Vibgyor Allied Infrastructure Limited), Having its registered office at Vibgyor Tower, 87, Dr. Suresh Sarkar Road, Kolkata – 700 014.

                                                4. RANA BHADRA (Director of Vibgyor Allied Infrastructure Limited), Having its registered office at Vibgyor Tower, 87, Dr. Suresh Sarkar Road, Kolkata – 700 014.                                           

                                             5. GOPAL MONDAL (Director of Vibgyor Allied Infrastructure Limited), Having its registered office at Vibgyor Tower, 87, Dr. Suresh Sarkar Road, Kolkata – 700 014.

                                                 6. BISWARUP GHATAK (Director of Vibgyor Allied Infrastructure Limited), Having its registered office at Vibgyor Tower, 87, Dr. Suresh Sarkar Road, Kolkata – 700 014.

                                                  7. MANMATHA MONDAL (Director of Vibgyor Allied Infrastructure Limited), Having its registered office at Vibgyor Tower, 87, Dr. Suresh Sarkar Road, Kolkata – 700 014.

                                                  8. NARGIS BHADRA (Director of Vibgyor Allied Infrastructure Limited), Having its registered office at Vibgyor Tower, 87, Dr. Suresh Sarkar Road, Kolkata – 700 014.                            

______________________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT

Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President

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

O.P. nos. 1 to 7 are Directors of Vibgyor Allied Infrastructure Limited  which launched a housing project namely SABUJ DIGANTA. Complainant was conned into buying 2 developed plots of land of 2 cattahs each in that project by the O.P.s and an agreement of allotment dated 31.12.2011 was also executed by and between the O.P.s and the complainant. By virtue of that agreement, the complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as consideration price from time to time to the O.P.s. The O.P.s agreed to deliver vacant possession of the developed land to the complainant and also to execute and register a deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant within that period. But, possession was not delivered to the complainant, nor was registered deed of conveyance in his favour. Constant imploring of the complainant remained impervious to the O.P.s and therefore the complainant has filed the instant case praying for delivery of possession, registration of deed of conveyance in his favour and also for payment of compensation etc. Hence, this case.

            Notice of the case was served upon all the O.P.s. O.P. nos. 1 and 2 entered appearance, but they did not file any W/V. They preferred appeal no. 18/2017 and also revision no. 2164/2017 before the State and National Commission respectively and all those cases have also been dismissed. Still, the O.P.s have not filed any W/V to contest this case. Hence, the case is heard ex-parte against them.          

                                                   POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Are the O.P.s guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
2. Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for?

     EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES    

Petition of complaint is treated as evidence of the complainant, vide his petition dated 20.09.2019.

                                          DECISION WITH REASONS

Point nos. 1 and 2 :

            The complainant has filed 2 copies of allotment agreement dated 31.12.2011 on record. A perusal of this agreement reveals that the O.P.s agreed to deliver possession of the vacant land to the complainant within 36 months from the date of issuing allotment, vide clause 10 of allotment agreement. The agreement of allotment was executed on 31.12.2011. Since then more than 3 years have already expired. Now it is 2009. The complainant has stated in his petition of complaint that the possession of the subject land is yet to be delivered to him. It is also stated by him that deed of conveyance has not been executed and registered by the O.P.s in his favour. There is no evidence on record to contradict this version of the complainant. We find no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the version of the complainant. On the other hand, it is evident on record that the O.P.s have left no stone unturned to move State Commission and National Commission to hinder the smooth progress of the instant case. They have not turned up to contest this case. Why? What does it mean? It means and means only that the O.P.s have no defense against the allegation of the complainant. Regard being had to all these, we are of the opinion that there is a plenty of grain of truth in the version of the complainant and it stands established on record by unchallenged testimony of the complainant that the O.P.s are guilty of deficiency in service for not giving due honor to the terms and conditions of the agreement. The complainant has certainly undergone tremendous harassment and mental agony due to breach of agreement occasioned by the O.P.s. The complainant is entitled to get relief which is accorded as hereunder.                                                         

            In the result, the case succeeds.

            Hence,

            ORDERED

            That the complaint case be and the same is decreed ex-parte against the O.P.s with a cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

O.P.s and their company are directed to deliver the vacant possession of the subject land as described in the agreement dated 31.12.2011 to the complainant and also to execute and register a deed of conveyance with respect to that land in favour of the complainant within a month of this order, failing which, they shall refund Rs. 5,00,000/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. till full realization thereof and in that case they will also have to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment, to the complainant within a month thereafter in default of which the compensation amount will bear interest at the rate of 10% p.a. till full realization thereof. If the direction of the award is not complied with by the O.P.s, the complainant is at liberty to execute this award through the instrumentality of this forum.         

Register-in-charge is directed to supply a free certified copy of this judgment at once to the parties concerned.

I/We agree                                       Member                           Member                         President

                        Directed and corrected by me

                                                             President