DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,

 KOLKATA-700 0144

      C.C. CASE NO. __161_ _ OF ___2017

DATE OF FILING : 19.12.2017        DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  5.9.2018

Present                 :   President       :   Ananta Kumar Kapri

                                 Member(s)    :   Subrata Sarker & Jhunu Prasad

COMPLAINANT     :  Sudip Roy, son of late Parimal Chandra Roy of Flat no. F2 (1^st floor) , KMC no. 363, B-9/1, Diamond Park, Kolkata-104 and permanent address at Post Office Para, P.O & P.S Bakshirhat, Dist. Cooch Behar, Pin-736131.

•  VERSUS  -

O.P/O.Ps                    : 1. M/s D.K Infra Projects (India)  Limited , A Unit of D.K Group of Companies , site office at Garden City-II, Dakshin Bagi, Khariberia, P.S Bishnupur, South 24-Parganas, represented by its Director Sri Asit Pramanik.

                                  2.   Sri Asit Pramanik, Managing Director of M/s  D.K Group of Companies , site office at Garden City-II, Dakshin Bagi, Khariberia, P.S Bishnupur, South 24-Parganas and also city office at 617, Diamond Harbour Road, Kadamtala Bazar, P.S Thakurpukur, Kolkata – 63.

_______________________________________________________________________

                                                J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

Sri Ananta Kumar  Kapri, President

                Negligence to return the booking money received by O.P-2 from the complainant has galvanized the complainant to file the instant case under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986.

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

              The O.P-1 is an incorporated company and O.P-2 is the Managing Director thereof, conducting Real Estate Business. Complainant booked one villa to be constructed by the O.P-2 and also paid Rs.50,000/- on 15.2.2012 as booking money. He also paid Rs.3,48,646/- in all including booking money, installments of consideration amount , cost of Booking Form and processing charge of Home Loan taken from HDFC. But the O.P-2 did not start the project work in terms of his agreement and, therefore, the complainant cancelled the booking of the flat and sought for refund of money paid by him. O.P-2 also gave commitment to refund the money; but he  paid Rs.25000/- only and did not pay the balance amount of the said money inspite of repeated reminders by the complainant. So, the complainant has prayed for return of Rs.3,23,646/- , compensation etc. Hence, arises the instant case.

             Notice of the case is served upon the O.Ps through paper publication in newspaper. Inspite of such service, none of the O.Ps has made any appearance in the case and, therefore, the case is heard exparte against them.

            Evidence on affidavit is filed by the complainant along with the documents relied on by him. All these are kept in the record after consideration.

DECISION WITH REASONS

             It is to be seen now, whether the O.Ps are guilty of deficiency in service by not returning the money received from the complainant.

            In the instant case, the complainant has filed affidavit-in-chief  and has stated therein on oath that he booked the villa in the project of O.P-2 and that he also paid a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- to the O.P-2. It is also stated by him in his evidence that there has been no progress of project work and, therefore, he has cancelled the booking of the villa. It is also stated by him in his evidence that O.P-2 made commitment to return the money received from him and that he has returned Rs.2500/- only. The complainant has also filed 4 money receipts vide Annexure B series. These money receipts bear the seal and signature of O.P no.2’s company. The complainant has also filed a document marked as Annexure H and it is seen therefrom that the complainant has cancelled the booking and has prayed for return of the money paid by him. The O.P-2 has paid Rs.25000/- only to the complainant. All these evidences of the complainant have remained unrebutted. There is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of the complainant. 

             Relying upon such evidences of the complainant we do hold that the complainant has been able to prove that O.P-2 ,who received money from the complainant for selling a villat in his project to the complainant, has not been able to complete the project work in terms of his agreement and that he has thus committed deficiency in service . Non-refund of money received by the O.P-2, on account of failure to complete the project work is nothing but a deficiency in service and, therefore, the complainant is entitled to get back the money advanced by him to O.P-2 with compensation for harassment and mental agony sustained by him due to non-performance of the agreement by the developer i.e O.P-2.          

              In the result, the case succeeds .

               Hence,

ORDERED

             That the complaint case be and the same is decreed exparte against the O.Ps with a cost of Rs.10,000/-.

            The O.P nos. 1 and 2 are directed to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.3,23,646/- to the complainant with interest @12% p.a from the date of receipt of each installment of the said money till full realization thereof.

              They are also directed to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony sustained by the complainant .

              All the amounts should be paid within a month of this order, failing which the compensation amount and the amount of cost as referred to above will bear interest @ 8% p.a till full realization thereof.

    Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.   

                                                                                                                   President

I / We agree

                              Member                                  Member     

Dictated and corrected by me

                               President