Date of Filing: 02.09.2019
Date of Judgment: 28.01.2022
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President
This complaint is filed by the complainant , Nibedita Sethy, under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 against the opposite parties namely 1) 7 Sense Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. , 2) Rakesh Singh (Authorised Director), 3) Ruplekha Mitra (Director), 4) Koushik Bose (Director), 5) Mahuya Singh (Director), 6) Binayak Sen (Director), 7) Bishnu Charan Das (Director) and 8) 7 Sense Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ( Referred to as O.Ps) , alleging deficiency in service on their part.
The case of the complainant, in short, is that she is one of the employee of Indian Overseas Bank. O.P no.1 is a Developer Company and O.P nos. 2 to 7 are the Directors of the said company. O.P no. 8 is the registered office of the O.P no.1. To develop a housing project with a view to satisfy the need and request of group of officials of Indian Overseas Bank, O.Ps assured to purchase a piece of land for a housing project within the location of Rajarhat and offered the complainant to get a flat measuring 1100 sq.ft built up area along with car parking area at a total cost of Rs. 5,50,000/-. A Memorandum of understanding dated 26.5.2014 was entered into between the complainant and O.P no.2, the Authorized Director of the company. The complainant has paid the entire consideration of Rs. 5,55,000/- . As per Memorandum of Understanding the O.Ps had to construct and complete the flat within a stipulated period of not exceeding 4 years. But no progress was made towards the construction work of the flat or the project by the O.Ps. So, complainant requested the O.Ps to refund the entire payment made by her. But O.Ps did not refund the same and thus the present complaint has been filed for directing the O.Ps to refund the amount paid by the complainant jointly and/or severally along with 12% interest , to pay compensation of Rs.1 lac and litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/-.
On perusal of the record it appears that notice was sent to the O.Ps and also it was published in the newspaper. But no step was taken by the O.Ps and thus the case was directed to be proceeded exparte.
Complainant has filed the Memorandum of Understanding, the money receipts and the letters sent by the complainant, asking the O.Ps to refund the payment made by her.
So, the only point requires determination whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons
In support of her claim that she invested a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- to purchase a flat along with car parking space at a total amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- and has paid the entire amount , the complainant has filed the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the parties on 26.5.2014 and also the money receipts dated 26.6.2014, 12.9.2014 and 22.2.2014 respectively.
On perusal of the Memorandum of Understanding it appears that the O.Ps agreed to complete the project and hand over the flat within a stipulated period of not exceeding 4 years from the date of final payment. Apparently the final payment was made by the complainant on 12.9.2014. According to the complainant, neither the flat has been handed over by the O.Ps nor money paid by the complainant has been refunded inspite of her requesting for refund of the said sum by a letter dated 20.2.2018. The said letter is also filed by the complainant. Since, before this Commission there is absolutely no contrary material in order to counter or rebut the claim of the complainant, complainant is entitled to refund of the sum paid by her along with interest in the form of compensation.
Hence,
ORDERED
That CC/ 466 /2019 is allowed exparte.
The O.Ps are jointly and/or severally directed to refund the sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- to the complainant along with interest on the said sum @12% p.a from the date of last payment i.e 12.9.2014 within 2(two) months from this date, in default of payment, entire sum shall carry interest @ 8% till realization.
The O.Ps are further directed to pay litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- within the aforesaid period of 2 months from this date.
