Judgment : Dt.18.1.2018

Shri S. K. Verma, President

            This is a complaint made by (1) Sri Surajit Paul, son of Swapan Paul, and (2) Swapan Paul, son of Lt. Nityananda Paul, both of 221C/1, Raipur Road, P.S.-Netaji Nagar, Kolkata-700 047, Dist.- South 24-Parganas against Annapurna Construction, a proprietorship firm represented by sole proprietor Uttam Naskar, having its office at 2/78, Gandhi Road, P.O. & P.S.-Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 092, Dist.- 24-Pargnas (South), OP No.1, Smt. Shikha Rakshit, OP No.2, Sanjiv Rakshit, OP No.3, Sonali Rakshit, OP No.3 all daughters of Late Braja Gopal Rakshit of 12/2, Ganguly Bagan East Road, P.S.-Patuli, Kolkata-700 084 praying for handing over possession to the Complainants in respect of the B schedule property and for making conveyance deed of B schedule property in favour of the Complainant and compensation ofRs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.25,000/-, alternatively to refund of Rs.2,30,000/- to the Complainants.

            Facts in brief are that OP No.1 is a sole proprietorship firm represented by its sole proprietor Uttam Naskar and is involved in construction and development business of property and building. OP No.2 to 4 are land owners. OP No.1 being developer, entered into agreement with OP No.2 to 4. OP No.2 to 4 also made a power of attorney in favour of OP No.1. After execution of such development agreement and power of attorney OP No.1 being developer proposed to the Complainant for purchasing a shop room out of developer’s allocation on the multi-storied building to be constructed on the Schedule A premises. Complainant asked for relevant and requisite papers relating to such construction on A schedule premises and OP No.1, developer with OP No.2 to 4, land owners  entered into an agreement for sale on 26.12.2016 for purchasing a shop room from developer’s allocation having an area of 146 sq.ft. having an height of 11.6 ft on the West side of the multi storied building for a consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-. At the time of agreement for sale, the Complainants paid Rs.2,00,000/-. Thereafter, it was mutually decided amongst the Complainant and OPs that the said shop room is not big and spacious enough for putting up an establishment which they intend to establish on the said shop room for the purpose of earning their livelihood for the Complainants. Thereafter, it was decided that another shop room will be purchased by the Complainants. Accordingly, amongst the Complainants and OP No.1it was agreed that and contract was formed that Complainants will also purchase the shop room measuring about 120 sq.ft. adjacent to the said shop room measuring about 146 sq.ft. on the western side of A schedule property of which agreement for sale was entered into at a cost of Rs.3,80,000/-. It was settled amongst the parties that the possession in respect of the shop room will be delivered to the Complainants within five months from the date of execution of the agreement for sale dt.26.12.2016 and on receiving the delivery in respect of the agreed shop rooms it will be executed in favour of the Complainants. However, more than five months elapsed. But OPs did neither delivery of possession nor executed the deed in favour of the Complainant. So, Complainant filed this case.

            OPs did not contest the case by filing written version and so the case is heard ex-parte against it.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief.

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

            In this regard, we find that the copies of agreement have been filed, original receipts are filed which establish that Complainant has paid Rs.2,30,000/-. Further one copy of chuktipatra is also filed.

            As such, we are of the view that there is no bar in allowing the relief prayer of the Complainant, wherein he has prayed for refund of Rs.2,30,000/-.

            Complainant has also prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.25,000/-.

            Considering the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that if compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- are awarded object of justice would be served.

Hence,

ordered

            CC/469/2017 and the same is allowed ex-parte in part. OP No.1 is directed to pay Rs.2,30,000/- to the Complainant within two months of this order. In addition, OP No.1 is directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost within that period. Otherwise, the total amount of Rs.2,60,000/- shall carry interest @ 10%p.a. from the date of order till realization.