West Bengal

Kolkata-I(North)

CC/204/2018

Sri Rajeshwar Datta and another - Complainant(s)

Versus

BACM PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED and another - Opp.Party(s)

Amaresh Kumar Dhar and 2 others

13 Dec 2018

ORDER

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata - I (North)
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
Web-site - confonet.nic.in
 
Complaint Case No. CC/204/2018
( Date of Filing : 10 Jul 2018 )
 
1. Sri Rajeshwar Datta and another
S/o Sri Rabindra Nath Datta, Premises No. 39/1B, Raja Raj Ballav Street, P.S. - Shyampukur, Kolkata - 700003.
2. Smt. Oindrila Datta
W/o Sri Rajehwar Datta, Premises No. 39/1B, Raja Raj Ballav Street, P.S. - Shyampukur, Kolkata - 700003.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. BACM PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED and another
Office Space No. 306, 3rd Floor, PS IXL, Block - A, Atghora, New Town, P.S. - Baguiati, Near Spencer Building Chinar Park Crossing and City Center II, Kolkata - 700136.
2. The Directors, BACM PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED
Office Space No. 306, 3rd Floor, PS IXL, Block - A, Atghora, New Town, P.S. - Baguiati, Near Spencer Building Chinar Park Crossing And City Center II, Kolkata - 700136.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Sambhunath Chatterjee PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Sk. Abul Answar MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Sagarika Sarkar MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Amaresh Kumar Dhar and 2 others, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 13 Dec 2018
Final Order / Judgement

Order No.  6  dt.  13/12/2018

          The case of the complainants in brief is that the complainants being attracted with an advertisement appeared in Ananda Bazar Patrika the complainants applied to the advertiser for having a flat in the project known as GUL MOHAR. The complainants came to learn the proposed project through the Brochure provided with the application kit. The complainant also paid application money of Rs.1,00,000/- by a cheque drawn on United Bank of India, Shyampukur Branch in favour of the o.p.  The complainants after applying in the said project for having a flat and before payment of further amount asked for the legal documents from the o.ps. for clearing of their doubt regarding the title of the land in question whereby the o.p. wanted to construct the building. The complainant was not provided with those documents and the complainant on reaching the site found that no sign of any erection of any tower in the said proposed site of the construction. Realizing the malafide intention of the o.ps. the complainants wanted to have the refund of the money paid by them. The complainants thereafter sent various communications to the o.ps. but the o.p.s did not pay any heed, for which the complainant had to file this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for refund of the money paid by the complainants as well as compensation and litigation cost.                               

            The o.ps. did not contest the case though the notice was issued upon the o.ps. through the notice issued in a daily news paper. The complainant in order to substantiate the same filed the paper cutting. In spite of issuance of such notice in the daily news paper the o.p.s did not turn up, for which the case has proceeded  ex parte against the o.ps.

            The complainants has filed an affidavit of  evidence stating that the o.p.s in spite of receiving the amount failed to provide the documents for the satisfaction of the complainants regarding the ownership of the land in question whereby the construction is going to be made. The o.ps. failed to produce those documents for which the  complainants demanded the money paid by them. The complainants has also filed the documents showing that the payment was made to the o.ps. and the amount of the cheques were received by the o.ps.

            The evidence of the complainants has remained unchallenged moreover, it appears from the materials on record that the o.ps. did not take any initiative for construction of the building as well as failed to provide the document to the complainants for their satisfaction regarding the title of the land in question whereby the o.p. wanted to have the construction.  In view of the said evidence on record we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps. and the complainants will be entitled to get back the amount paid by them as well as compensation and litigation cost.

            Hence is it orderd

            That the CC No. 204/2018 is allowed ex-parte against the o.ps. with cost. The o.ps. are jointly and severally directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only within one month from the date of service of the notice failing which the complainants will be entitled to get interest @8% on that amount till the realization of the said amount.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sambhunath Chatterjee]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sk. Abul Answar]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Sagarika Sarkar]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.