DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS, AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,
KOLKATA-700 144
C.C. CASE NO. 496 OF 2014
DATE OF FILING : 26/09/2014 DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 05/04/2019
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member : Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Mr. Arabinda Maity, Residing at 34/A, Ramanath
Bhattacharjee Street, Bally, Howrah – 711202 and
corresponding address at P-13, T. Abasan, Near Stove
Factory, Kolkata-700 096.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. Sri Sanjib Dutta, Proprietor of M/s. S.D. Enterprise, of 59/6, Bhupen Roy Road, Behala, Kolkata-700 034.
2. Adler & Associates (Projects) Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 having its Registered Office at Gazipur, Avoy Dutta Lane, P.O.-Rajpur, P.S.- Sonarpur, Kolkata-700 149.
3. Ravi Gupta, S/o. Rajendra Gupta, 143/123, Picnic Garden Road, Kolkata-700 039.
4. M/s. Shriram Housing Finance Ltd., 53A, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Kolkata-700 016 and also CK 15, Sector-II, Near Karunamoyee, Tank No. 9, Kolkata-700 091.
__________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
The quintessence of the facts leading to the filing of the instant case by the complainant runs as follows.
An agreement for sale dated 25.02.2013 was executed and registered by and between the complainant on one side and O.P. nos. 1 and 2 on the other and thereby the O.Ps no. 1 and 2 agreed to sell a self contained flat in residential building succinctly described in schedule to the complainant as it stands now after the amendment. The total consideration price was fixed at Rs. 16,000,00/- and out of it the complainant paid Rs. 14,40,000/- to O.Ps no 1 and 2 on the date of registration of the agreement of sale. Possession of the flat was agreed to be delivered to the complainant within a month of the date of registration of the agreement. It was further also agreed by the O.P. nos. 1 and 2 that the deed of conveyance would be registered in favour of the complainant with respect to the flat within one month of the date of registration of agreement. But all these commitments of O.Ps have now turned into futile; deed of conveyance has not been registered and possession of the flat has not also been delivered to the complainant as yet. Constant pursuing by the complainant has also proved futile. The complainant has therefore filed the instant case praying for refund of the consideration prices from O.P. nos. 1 and 2 and also for compensation.
Hence this case,
Notice of the proceedings was served upon the O.P. nos. 1, 2 & 3 by way of paper publication and they did not appear to contest the case and therefore the case proceeds ex-parte against them. O.P. no. 4 entered into appearance in this case; but; ultimately no WS is filed in this case and therefore the case is also heard ex-parte against O.P. no. 4.
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Evidence on affidavit is led by the complainant and the same is kept in record after consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
In the instant case, the complainant has produced the sale agreement dated 25.02.2013 before the forum. He has also stated on oath that the O.P. nos. 1 and 2 have not delivered the possession of the flat to him within a month of the date of sale agreement in terms of the agreement. Those O.Ps have not also registered the deed of conveyance in favour of him within a month of the date of registration of sale agreement. The terms of agreement have been thrown into the wind by O.P. nos. 1 & 2 and no response is available as yet from those O.Ps in spite of constant pursuing by him. The O.Ps have been gone into hibernation after getting a lump sum of consideration price i.e. Rs. 14,40,000/- from him. The complainant now prays for refund of consideration price paid by him.
The sale agreement dated 25.02.2013 has remained unchallenged. In the sale agreement, it is written that Rs. 14,40,000/- has been paid to O.P nos. 1 & 2 by the complainant. The sale agreement is a registered one; it is also executed by both O.P. nos. 1 & 2. We cannot disbelieve the sale agreement and also unchallenged testimony of the complainant. It stands established by unchallenged evidence of the complainant that O.P nos. 1 & 2 have made a default in terms of the sale agreement and that thereby they have caused deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant. Complainant is now deemed to be entitled to refund of the consideration price paid by him to O.Ps with interest and also to compensation for loss sustained by him due to sharp rise in the value of real property.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complainant case be and same is decreed ex-parte against O.P. nos. 1 and 2 with a cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The case stands dismissed against O.P. nos. 3 and 4 for want of cause an action.
O.P. nos. 1 and 2 who shall remain jointly and severally liable, are directed to refund the consideration money i.e. Rs. 14,40,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of registration of sale agreement, i.e. 25.02.2013 till full realization thereof and also to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation for loss sustained by the complainant owing to appreciation of value of the land, within a month of this order, failing which the compensation amount and the cost amount will bear interest at the rate of Rs. 9% p.a. till full realization thereof.
Register-in-charge of this forum is to supply copy of judgment free of cost at once to the parties concerned.
I / We agree Member President
Dictated and corrected by me
President
