Order No.  20  dt.  30/10/2017

            Fact of the case according to the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant booked a plot within the Sun City project of M/s Desire Agro Resort Development Private Ltd., P/525 Hemanta Mukhopadhyay Sarani (Raja Basanta Roy Road), Kolkata-29 (op-1) on 18.09.2004 by payment of Rs.10,000/- for purchasing it with its development for residential purpose at Mouza- Chakbalaibag, area 1440sq.ft. at Dag No.73, Khatian No.149, J.L.No.86 under Bishnupur P.S. in South 24-Parganas at a consideration of Rs.96,000/-. The rest amount of Rs.86,000/- would be paid in 36 monthly installments and the complainant had paid the 1^st installment of Rs.2,388.88 on 05.01.2005 with receipt from op-1. The remaining 35 installments were also paid between 08.04.2005 to 13.02.2008. On the request of the o.p., complainant paid Rs.9,600/- on 13.08.2008 as registration fee for registration of deed of conveyance. On 21.03.2011 complainant through a letter asked the o.p. for registration of the land and thereafter complainant knocked the o.p. on 20.05.2011, 21.07.2011, 18.05.2012, 20.09.2012 and 22.11.2013 through notice and personal visit. Complainant lodged a G.D. on 22.09.2014 at Lake Police Station and thereby o.p. paid a sum of Rs.4,000/- only. Therefore an amount of  Rs.92,000/- remained to the complainant. The cause of action arose on 21.03.2011 which continued till 22.11.2013 and finally on refund of Rs.4,000/- in October,2014. Complainant sent a legal notice on 04.12.2014 thereafter lodged the complaint praying for refund of Rs.92,000/- and with compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-.

            O.p. contested the case by submitting w/v. In the w/v, o.p. denied all allegations made against them. Ld. Lawyer of the o.p. argued that the case of the complainant is a prayer for refund of the money from the o.ps for which the case can be adjudicated only before the competent Civil Court.

            The SUN CITY project of the o.ps has been abandoned due to imposition of restriction stipulated by the government and the local authorities and also for some legal impediment and as such not providing of the plot to the complainant by the o.ps was beyond the control and was due to unavoidable circumstances for which there was no deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps as alleged by the complainant. Therefore, op is not liable to pay any compensation, cost etc. to the complainant and as such the prayer for compensation is liable to be rejected with exemplary cost.  It is further stated that mere writing of letter or making of communication one after another to the o.ps does not and cannot continue the cause of action for which the complaint case is liable to be dismissed.                                                     On the basis of submission of the complainant the following points are to be decided:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of the o.ps?

 2      Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?  

Decision with reasons

           All points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.

          Considering the submission of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that complainant entered into an agreement with o.p. for purchasing a plot with its development and complainant paid the whole amount of Rs96,000/- as fixed by the op against the plot within the time frame. Again on the request of the o.p., complainant paid Rs.9,600/- on 13.08.2008 as registration fee for registration of deed of conveyance. On 21.03.2011 complainant through a letter asked the o.p. for registration of the land and thereafter complainant knocked the o.p. times and again through notice and personal visit. Complainant lodged a G.D. on 22.09.2014 at Lake Police Station. O.P. ultimately paid a sum of Rs.4,000/-only to the complainant.

           O.p. failed to provide the land in terms and condition of the agreement. Therefore, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. otherwise it would be termed as utp for which o.p. is liable to pay compensation and cost also.

           Considering the submission of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that complainant entered into an agreement with o.p. for purchasing a plot with its development and the complainant paid Rs.96,000/-/-. Since the o.p. discontinued the project and did not refund the remaining amount, it is therefore, considered that there was Unfair Trade Practices on the part of the ops. And the complainant will be entitled to get relief. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.

Hence, ordered.

           that the case no.768/2014 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. O.p. is directed to pay Rs.92,000/-( Rupees Ninety Two thousand ) only to the complainant with compensation of Rs.40,000/-( Rupees Forty thousand ) only and litigation cost of Rs.3,000/- ( rupees Three thousand ) only . O.p.is also directed to pay the aforesaid amount within 30 days from the date of this order i.d., an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.

          Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.