Judgment : Dt.23.11.2017
Shri S. K. Verma, President.
This is a complaint made by one Sri Gautam Dasgupta, son of Sri Dilip Kumar Dasgupta, 32, Ferry Ghat Street, Dist.- Hooghly, PIN-712 125 against Astha Infracon Pvt. Ltd., having office at 49, Shyama Pally, P.O. & P.S.-Jadavpur, Kolkata-32, OP No.1, Sri Ashim Kumar Saha, son of late Madhusudan Saha, A/13, Rabindrapally, 1st floor, P.O.-Baghajatin, P.S.-Patuli, Kolkata-700 086, OP No.2 and Sri Bhabatosh Das, son of late Surendra Kumar Das, Flat No.B-2, Priyatama Apartment, 1/2, Chittaranjan Park, P.S.-Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 032, OP No.3 praying for a direction upon the O.P. to refund an amount of Rs.10,60,000/- along with interest of 18% and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-.
Facts in brief are that Complainant on getting information of selling plots at Rajarhat approached the OP for purchasing a plot at the project named ‘SREEBHUMI’ for residential purposes. OP No.1 is the Pvt. Ltd. Co. and undertook the job of development of the said land and other development works. OP No.2 & 3 are the officers of OP No.1. In terms of the agreement consideration price was fixed at Rs.11,00,000/- and the plots will be handed over within 42 months from the date of agreement. Complainant, accordingly, paid Rs.3,29,998/- as the earnest money to the OP and paid the installment as per agreement. Plot No.14 lying and situated at Rajarhat Sreebhumi Project at R.S.Dag No.2171, Khatian No.1666, is the subject matter of the dispute. Complainant paid Rs.60,000/- towards Registration fee and other charges. OPs did not complete the job and could not handover the possession. Complainant completed the part of consideration in June, 2013, but did not hand over the possession of the plot. Complainant lodged a diary in the P.S., despite that OP did not hand over possession. So, Complainant filed this case.
OPs filed written version and denied the allegations of the complaint. Further OPs have stated that Complainant approached ASTHA INFRACON PVT. LTD., OP No.1, for buying a plot. Further, OPs have stated that the company purchased some land in Dag No.2171 and made a scheme plan named “Rajarhat SSHEEBHUMI”. After that agreement for sale was entered into between parties. It was agreed that Complainant would be allotted 4 kathas land for a price of Rs.11,00,000/-. OP supplied all relevant documents to the Complainant, to put of consideration money, a deed of sale was prepared after purchasing necessary stamp paper and it was sent for assessment of stamp duty. On assessment it was revealed that registration charges would be Rs.30,010/- and Rs.6,628/-.
After completing the necessary formalities the deed was presented for registration. However, due to some confusion, regarding pendency of cases against the Co.’s, the registration was withheld. Later on company was found not involved in any criminal case. Complainant lodged several false cases against the OPs. OPs under compelling circumstances, issued 3 A/C payee cheques amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.70,000/-. Complainant also lodged a complaint under Sec.138 N.I.Act. OPs were attacked by the Complainant. Despite that OPs wrote several letters to Complainant to get the deed registered. But, Complainant started insisting refund of the money.
Further OPs have denied all the allegations of the complaint. OPs are ready and willing to handover possession of the plot and to execute relevant conveyance deed. But, Complainant insisted for refund of the money. OPs are still ready to handover possession and execute registered deed of sale as per agreement. There was no occasion for complainant suffering mental agony. So, OPs have prayed for dismissal of this complaint.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief to which OP filed questionnaire against which Complainant did not file affidavit-in-reply. OP filed evidence against 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.
On perusal of the prayer portion, it appears that the Complainant has prayed for a direction upon the OP to refund Rs.10,60,000/-.
In this regard, there is no dispute that Complainant did not pay the money. It is because OPs in their written version have stated that they are ready and willing to hand over the possession of the plot and also for making a conveyance deed.
Complainant has also filed copy of Memorandum of Understanding, wherein the terms and conditions are mentioned which make it clear that the Complainant shall get possession of the plot after development by OPs. Further, it appears that there were cases pending upon the land of which plots were to be sold and the agreement was entered into between Complainant and OP.
On perusal of copy of Xerox document dt.3.10.2013, which is addressed to Mr. Gautam Dasgupta who is Complainant in this case by the OPs stating that the Complainant made full and final payment of the plot in question.
Complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.10,60,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. Since this letter makes it clear that OPs received the money they are bound to refund it, of course with the interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of this order.
Complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-, which appear to be excessive. However, justice requires if compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/- is awarded justice would be served.
Hence,
ordered
CC/121/2017 and the same is allowed on contest. OPs are directed to refund Rs.10,60,000/- to the Complainant within two months of this order, in default the amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of this order. They are also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost within this period, in default this amount shall also carry interest @ 10% p.a. provided the original letter dt.3.10.2013 addressed to Complainants having acknowledgement of full and final payment by OPs.
