West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/600/2014

1.Mrs. Uma Mitra. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ananta Mondal Sthapati Project and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

22 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , JUDGES’ COURT, ALIPORE KOLKATA-700 027

 

         C.C. CASE NO. _600_ OF ___2014__

 

DATE OF FILING : 11.12.2014     DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  22.07.2015

 

Present                        :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :    Mrs. Sharmi Basu & Jinjir Bhattacharya

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT             :   Mrs. Uma Mitra, 5/2, Beltala Road, Naresh Mitra Sarani, Kolkata- 26,                                    

                                               P.S. Bhawanipur.

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                            :   1.     Ananta Mondal (Sthapati Project & Infrastructure Private Limited) ,            

                                               186, Kalitala Road, Ground Floor, Kolkata – 99, P.S. Purba Jadavpur.

                                                2.     Sri Deepak Shaw, an associate of Sri Ananta Mondal, Designer                 

C/O Sthapati Project & Infrastructure Private Limited) , 186, Kalitala Road, Ground Floor, Kolkata – 99, P.S. Purba Jadavpur.

________________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

 

Mrs. Sharmi Basu, Member

            The instant case has been filed by the complainant under section  12 of the C.P Act, 1986 with allegation of deficiency in service against the O.Ps.

            In a nutshell the case of the complainant is that complainant entered  into a contract with an Architect namely Ananta Mondal  ,owner of Sthapati Projects & Infrastructure Private Limited and also with the O.P-2 for getting a sanctioned plan by K.M.C of the suit property and as per verbal contract complainant is liable to pay Rs. 2 lacs to the O.Ps and including some installments he has paid in total  Rs.1,62,000/- to the O.Ps . But after repeated requests verbally and also in writing he has not received the sanctioned plan in question from the O.Ps. Therefore, complainant has no other alternative but to file the instant case before this Forum for redressal of his grievances and he has prayed for direction upon the O.Ps to refund Rs.1,62,000/- and also to pay Rs.30,000/- for his to and fro journey from his residence i. e. New Delhi to Kolkata and also to pay compensation and litigation cost. 

            After receiving summon one Ld. Advocate of the O.Ps appeared with vakalatnama . Accordingly date was fixed for filing written version on 16.3.2015. Thereafter on 16.3.2015 none appeared due to resolution of Local Bar and another date was fixed i.e. on 8.4.2015. On that date written version was not filed. Again a date was fixed on 24.4.2015 but complainant was present and none appears on behalf of the O.P and no step was taken ,for which, when we calculated from the date of appearance of the O.Ps first time on 12.2.2015 till 24.4.2015, it comes 72 days already passed for filing written version. Thereafter exparte argument was fixed on 6.5.2015. On 6.5.2015 there was no quorum and Ld. Advocate of the O.Ps appeared and filed a petition with a liberty to file written version  ,which was kept with the record fixing 4.6.2015 for argument exparte. But the Ld. Advocate of the O.Ps against prayed for time to file written version. Thus in all at about 100 days was over for filing written version, for which we are compelled to take up argument in exparte. Nowadays, it was an habit of the unruly O.Ps not to file written version, only assurance by filing application and thereafter when the case is fixed for exparte and passed appropriate order, moved before the Higher Forum and obtained to set aside the order, for which, we have narrated the background of the O.Ps and compelling circumstances we have fixed for exparte argument.

            However, thereafter good sense prevailed by the Ld. Advocate of the O.Ps and she participated in the argument and advanced her argument on behalf of the O.Ps. Thus the case will be disposed of on contest.

            The positive case of the O.Ps is that the O.Ps are ready and willing to hand over the sanctioned plan in question to the complainant subject to payment of balance amount of the aforesaid service charge and denied all the material allegations raised against them and prayed for dismissal of the instant case.

1.             Whether the complainant is a Consumer or not.
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps or not.
3. Whether the complainant is eligible to get relief as prayed for partly or fully.

Decision with reasons

            Considering four corners of the instant case  and hearing minutely from the representative of the complainant and the Ld. Advocate of the O.Ps it appears that , in fact, the complainant has entered into a verbal agreement with the O.Ps for getting a sanctioned plan of the suit premises ,where the service charge was fixed as Rs.2 lacs ( Letter of company dated 25.1.2014 Annexure B of the complaint) and it is also crystal clear from the record that complainant on affidavit has submitted that he has paid Rs. 1,62,000/- towards the service charge but on repeated requests O.Ps were reluctant to hand over the relevant receipts of those payments.

            At the time of argument Ld. Advocate of the O.Ps has submitted that the relevant sanctioned plan is ready and they are ready to hand over the same to the complainant. On the other hand,  regarding payment Ld. Advocate of the O.Ps has not advanced any specific argument to establish that the complainant has not paid Rs. 1,62,000/-towards the service charge. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant has paid Rs.1,62,000/- to the O.Ps and total service charge was fixed by and between the parties as Rs. 2 lacs. It is also fact that the O.Ps were reluctant enough to hand over the sanctioned plan in question to the complainant within a reasonable time. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that being a service provider the O.Ps have committed deficiency in rendering services towards the complainant/consumer and duty bound to hand over the sanctioned plan immediately to the complainant.

            Regarding the prayer of the complainant for direction upon the O.Ps to pay Rs.30,000/- for to and fro journey from New Delhi to Kolkata, this Forum is of the opinion that from the complaint petition as well as from the evidence of the complainant it appears that complainant has come to Kolkata from New Delhi for the purpose which is very much necessary for obtaining sanctioned plan. Therefore, we find no responsibility of the O.Ps to pay the cost of to and fro journey to the complainant and this Forum is unable to allow the aforesaid  prayer of the complainant.

            It is also opined by this Forum that O.Ps have failed to hand over the sanctioned plan within a reasonable time to the complainant and also does not care to inform any valid reason for the same and for this inaction and deficiency of service of the O.Ps ,complainant has to suffer immense mental agony, harassment and as such complainant is eligible to be compensated by the O.Ps and he is also entitled to get litigation cost from the O.Ps.

            Thus point nos. 2 and 3 are in favour of the complainant and the case succeeds.

            Hence,

                                                                        Ordered

That the case is allowed on contest  against the O.Ps with cost .

O.Ps are jointly and/or severally directed to hand over the original sanctioned plan in question of the suit premises to the complainant within 15 days from the date of this order upon receiving balance amount of Rs.38000/- from the complainant on the same date.

O.Ps are jointly and/or severally are directed also to pay Rs.40,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant and to pay litigation cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant within 15 days from the date of this order.

If the O.Ps fail to hand over the sanctioned plan within 15 days from the date of this order, O.Ps are jointly and/or severally liable to pay Rs.500/- per day for each day’s delay  till realsiation.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the parties free of cost.

 

Member                                                           Member                                               President

Dictated and corrected by me

 

                        Member

 

 

 

The judgement in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

 

Ordered

That the case is allowed on contest  against the O.Ps with cost .

O.Ps are jointly and/or severally directed to hand over the original sanctioned plan in question of the suit premises to the complainant within 15 days from the date of this order upon receiving balance amount of Rs.38000/- from the complainant on the same date.

O.Ps are jointly and/or severally are directed also to pay Rs.40,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant and to pay litigation cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant within 15 days from the date of this order.

If the O.Ps fail to hand over the sanctioned plan within 15 days from the date of this order, O.Ps are jointly and/or severally liable to pay Rs.500/- per day for each day’s delay  till realsiation.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the parties free of cost.

 

Member                                                           Member                                               President