Judgment : Dt.9.1.2018

Shri S. K. Verma, President

            This is a complaint made by one Sri Biswajeet Samanta, son of Tapan Kumar Samanta, flat 1A 11 Bansdroni, New Government Colony, Kolkata-700 070 against ABS Developers Pvt. Ltd., office at 13/B, Jatin Das Road P.S.-Tollygunge, Kolkata-700 029, OP No.1 and Sri Tapan Ghosh, son of P.L.Ghosh, residing at 13/B, Jatin Das Road P.S.-Tollygunge, Kolkata-700 029, OP No.2 praying for a direction upon the OPs to refund the entire amount of Rs.8,50,000/- with interest and further direction upon OPs to compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- for harassment Rs.70,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant was induced and allured by the offer to purchase a plot of land which is cheaper and located within the area of Rajarhat action area III. OP stated to the Complainant that their project under the name  of Rajarhat Green Field is to be completed in all respect by the month of December, 2014 and the developer will take all the required action for complying the same. After being convinced Complainant paid Rs.85,000/- to the developer  on 7.10.12 and entered into agreement for sale where Director of the Company told Complainant to pay Rs.2,15,000/- on or before 19.12.2017. Complainant further states that after getting the agreement for sale from the vendor he paid the balance amount of Rs.5,50,000/- in 12 installments without any delay. On receipt of the payment of the amount from the purchaser seller did not do any kind of demarcation for development of the land. Despite repeated requests to the Director of the Company nothing was done. Complainant further stated that after finding no other option he visited the project site on 30.11.2016 and found that Board of the Company had been removed from the site which Complainant communicated to the Company and its Director. Complainant further has stated that in the month of January, Sri Tapan Ghosh, Director of the Company called from his mobile phone to the Complainant and assured him that the entire money will be returned in the month of March when Complainant asked the Director to give this fact in writing. But the Director told that he will send through post. Complainant finding no other alternative called on the Director, but nothing was done and thereafter Complainant found that the mobile of the Director was switched off, so, Complainant filed this case.

            OP No.1 and OP No.2 filed written version and denied the allegations of the complaint. Further, OP No.1 & 2 stated that OPs have already demarcated and physically handed over the said plot to the Complainant. Plots had been developed according to the agreement long before and Complainant did not take any step to register the deed of sale in his favour even after several requests from the OPs. Except this OPs have denied specifically the allegations made by the Complainant and so they have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief to which OPs filed questionnaire to which Complainant filed affidavit-in-reply.  OPs filed a petition praying for treating the written version as affidavit-in-chief to which Complainant filed questionnaire to which OPs filed affidavit-in-reply.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

            In this regard, it appears that Complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.8,50,000/- with compensation and litigation cost. There is copy of agreement for sale filed which reveal that there was an agreement between the OPs and the Complainant, wherein OPs have agreed to handover the land measuring about 1440 sq.ft. equivalent to 2 cottahs plot no.A30 (Block A). It is the allegation of the Complainant that OPs did not handover the plot of land and did not deliver it to the Complainant and so Complainant was compelled to file this case. Further, it appears that Complainant has filed copies of the receipts showing that he made payment to the OPs to the tune of Rs.7,64,000/-. Further, it appears that OPs have admitted that they would pay the deposited amount with simple interest against the plot No.A30. So, there is an admission that the OPs took the money as alleged by the Complainant and they are ready to refund the money.

            As such, we are of the view that this is a fit case where OPs be directed to refund the money to the Complainant as claimed.

            Complainant has also prayed for compensation and litigation cost.

           Considering the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that if OPs pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- the object of justice would be served.

Hence,

ordered

           CC/231/2017 and the same is allowed on contest. OP is directed to pay Rs.8,50,000/- to the Complainant within three months of this order. They are further directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost, in default the total amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a.