DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS, 

AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144

      C.C. CASE NO. 11 OF 2017

DATE OF FILING: 20/01/2017    DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  19/04/2018

Present :   Member(s)    :     Subrata Sarker & Jhunu Prasad     

COMPLAINANT :  Sri Biswanath Mukherjee, S/O Sri Debnarayan Mukherjee, B/5/10, Golf Green Urban Complex, Phase - I, Kol – 700 095

VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps :  1) Vibgyor Housing Limited, Office at P-25, C.I.T Road, Kolkata – 700 014.

Represented by its director,

Mr. Rana Bhadra, S/O Mr. Samir Bhadra, Residing at Rabhindrqanagar (South), P.O. – Nimta, P.S. – Belgharia, Kolkata – 700 049

2) Vibgyor Allied Infrastructure Ltd., at 46-D, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, P.S. – Park Street, Kolkata – 700 016.

Represented by its Director,

Mr. Subrata Sarkar, S/O Late Saktipada Sarkar, Napitpara, Purulia, Namapara, Purulia, PIN – 723 103

_____________________________________________________________________________________

J U D G M E N T

Sri Subrata Sarker, Member

     The facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follow.

     O.P 1 is a developer and O.P 2, land owner. Both O.P 1 and the complainant entered into an agreement whereby O.P 1 agreed to sell a flat as succinctly described in the Schedule B to the complaint, for a total consideration price of Rs. 10,60,800/-. Agreement for sell was also executed on 02.04.13 by O.P 1 in favour of the complainant. The complainant paid a total sum of Rs. 4, 00,895 to the O.P 1 as part payment of consideration price. Thereafter, one day, the complainant made a visit to the project site and found that no project work was started by O.P 1. He requested O.P 1 to start the project work and to hand over the flat in terms of his agreement. But, the O.P 1 did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and therefore the complainant has come up before this Forum with the filing of the instant case praying for refund of the money paid and also for payment of compensation owing to deficiency in service by O.P 1.

     Hence, the case.

     Notice of the case was served upon the O.Ps through paper publication. Still, none of them has made appearance in this case and therefore the case is heard exparte against them.

     Following points are formulated for consideration in this case.

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

Are the O.Ps guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?

Is the complainant entitled to relief of release as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

      It transpires in evidence of the complainant that he made an agreement for sell on 02.04.13 with O.P 1 and that the O.P 1 thereby agreed to sell a flat described in schedule B to the complaint for a total consideration price of Rs. 10,60,800/-. It is also stated by the complainant in his evidence that he has paid a total amount of Rs. 4, 00,895/- to O.P 1 as part payment of consideration price. The agreement for sell and the money receipts are also filed by the complainant on record. It is further also stated by the complainant that the O.P 1 has not started the work of the project after having received a good amount of consideration price from him and that he has cheated him by adopting unfair trade practice. All these evidences of the complainant have not been rebutted by any evidence of the O.Ps. We found no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the evidence of the complainant as adduced by him herein. Relying upon unchallenged and un-rebutted evidence of the complainant, we feel no difficulty to hold that the complainant has been able to prove deficiency in service on the part of the O.P 1 who has renegued from his promise to construct a flat for the complainant and to deliver the same to him after completion of construction thereof. As regards the other O.Ps, It is found that they are not service providers to the complainant and therefore, the instant complaint appears to be not maintainable in law against them.

     In the result, the case succeeds.

   Hence, 

         

 

 

 

The Judgment in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in Open Forum.

 

                                                         

                                                                  ORDERED

     That the complaint case be and the same is decreed exparte against the O.P 1 with cost of Rs. 5,000/- and dismissed exparte against the rest of O.Ps without any cost.

    The O.P 1 is directed to make refund of Rs. 4, 00,895/- to the complainant with compensatory interest at the rate of 12% per annum, thereon from the date of payment of each installments to the date of full realization of entire amount along with a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant, within a month of this order failing which the compensation amount and also the amount of litigation cost will bear interest at the same rate i.e. 12% per annum till full realisation thereof.

     Let a copy of the order by supplied or sent free of cost forthwith to the parties concerned.

 

Member Member

               

Dictated and corrected by me

  Member