Date of filing: 18/02/2021                                       

Date of Judgment: 15/3/2023

Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President.

This complaint is filed by Sri Subhranil Ray under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against opposite party (referred as OP hereinafter) namely Astha Infracon Pvt. Ltd. being represented by its Directors namely (1) Sri Ashim Kr. Saha and (2) Bhabatosh Das  alleging deficiency in rendering of service on the part of the OP.

Case of the complainant in short is that opposite party being the developer had acquired huge quantity of land and started the development work of the said project namely Nepalganj New Garden Project. Being allured by advertisement of the OP, complainant had booked two plots of land being Plot No. 5 and Plot No. 12 and paid sum of Rs. 1,28,000/- each as booking amount on 24/02/2012 out of the total consideration price of Rs. 6,40,000/- each. Subsequently two separate agreement for sale has been executed between the parties on 11/03/2012 in respect of those two plots being No.5 & 12. By a letter dated 23/11/2018 OP however intimated to the complainant that they were not in a position to register the deed of conveyance in respect of those plots in Nepalganj New Garden Project and offered plot in  another project at Rajarhat Sree Bhumi and requested the complainant to take one plot measuring 4 cotthas in the said project namely Rajarhat Sree Bhumi at a price of Rs. 3,60,000/- only per cottah and thereby total price of the plot would be Rs. 14,40,000/-. The OP also intimated that the amount of Rs. 10,24,000/- already received by them from the complainant for the plots at Nepalganj New Garden Project shall be adjusted against the plot at Rajarhat Sree Bhumi. The complainant in effect had paid Rs. 10,49,600/- for those two plots being Plot No. 5 & 12 of Nepalganj New Garden Project. Complainant made further payment for the said plot at Rajarhat Sree Bhumi of Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 16,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- each on different dates. So the complainant has paid total sum of Rs. 11,15,600/-. It was found on visit on the said Rajarhat Sree Bhumi project that no development work was done and it was left abundant. So complainant requested the OP to refund the said amount along with interest @ 12% p.a. but since it has not been refunded, present complaint has been filed praying for directing the opposite party to refund the entire amount of Rs. 11,15,600/- together with interest @ 18% p.a., to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs. 50,000/- as litigation cost. 

On perusal of the record it appears that in spite of service of notice, OP did not turn up and thus the case has been heard exparte.

So the only point requires determination is whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASON

In support of his claim, complainant has filed the two agreement for sale entered into between the parties on 11/03/2013 in respect of purchase of the plot of land being plot no. 5 and plot no. 12 at Nepalganj New Garden Project. Even though no agreement for sale was entered into between the parties in respect of plot of land at Rajarhat Sree Bhumi Project but complainant has filed the letter sent by the OP dated 23/11/2018 wherefrom it appears that the OPs offered the complainant to take a plot of land at their Rajarhat Sree Bhumi project stating thereby that they were not in a position to register the plot of land at Nepalganj New Garden Project due to some unavoidable circumstances. In the said letter they have also acknowledged that the complainant had paid Rs. 10,24,000/- which will be adjusted against the plot value of project at Rajarhat Sree Bhumi. It is evident from the receipts filed by the complainant that the complainant had paid further sum of Rs. 20,000/-  each, Rs. 16,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- for the Project at Rajarhat Sree Bhumi. Complainant had paid Rs. 10,24,000/-for the Nepalganj New Garden Project which is also reflected in the document dated 23/11/2018 relating to payment details. The receipt dated 05/11/2013 indicates that balance amount was Rs. 3,10,000/- due to be paid by the complainant. So the own document of the complainant does not support his claim that he has made payment of Rs. 11,15,600/- in total. The document reveals that the complainant has paid Rs. 10,90,000/- out of the sum of Rs. 14,00,000/- as it appears from the payment details dated 23/11/2018 that 40,000/- out of Rs. 14,40,000/- was discounted. So complainant is entitled to the refund of Rs. 10,90,000/- as neither the plot of land has been handed over nor the money has been refunded to him. Be it mentioned here that the complainant has filed the document showing that OP had assured for structural development of the said project but the same has not been done and it has been left abandoned. Complainant is also entitled to the compensation in the form of interest on the sum. In our view interest @ 10% p.a. from the respective date of payments by the complainant will be justified.

Hence

               ORDERED

CC/96/2021 is allowed exparte. OP is directed to refund the sum of Rs. 10,90,000/- along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of payments made by the complainant, within two months from this date. OP is further directed to pay litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- within aforesaid period of two months. In default of payment, entire sum shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. till realisation.