Order No. 34 dt. 21/09/2017
The fact of the case according to the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant underwent an agreement with M/s Desire Agro Resorts Development (P) Ltd, P-525, Hemanta Mukhapadhyay Sarani , Kolkata-700 029 on 17.02.2009for purchasing a plot of land withit’s development measuring 2160 Sq. Ft.in Sonartari Project situated near Natagachi,P.S. Sonarpur, 24 Parganas (South) against a total consideration of Rs.2,40,000/- including development cost of Rs96,000/-, payable more or less in 36 instalments. Complainant paid Rs.15,000/-& Rs33,000/-through cheque no 176291 dt 06.08.2008 & through cheque no 176292 dt 02.09.2008 respectively to the o.p. The rest of the consideration was scheduled to be paid by the complainant in 36 installments @ Rs.6000/-only in each installment. In the agreement it was assured that the o.p. would execute the deed of conveyance after payment of Rs 1,44,000/-but no such step had been undertaken by the op. Though o.p. had accepted all the installments in respect of the purchase price of the land including development cost of the land but did not hand over the possession of the land in the name of the complainant. Numerous personal approach at the office of the o.p. had been made by the complainant with submission of letter dated 07.04.2011, 08.05.2011, 07.09.2011and 08.02.2011 but the o.p. remained nonresponsive in this respect till 06.11.2012. Complainant in the mean time approached the Asstt. Director, Consumer Affairs & FB for mediation of the dispute. But no solution had been drawn out for non cooperation on the part of the op. On 08.02.2012 complainant asked the o.p. to comply their agreement otherwise legal action would be undertaken.Op remained unmoved as usual against the ultimatum of the complainant. Finding no other alternative complainant lodged this complaint on 11.09.2012 seeking relief by praying registration of deed of conveyance of the land with refund of Rs96,000/-, cost paid for development of the land with compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for inconveniences distress & grievance. Subsequently, complainant through his petition dated 28.05.2015 prayed for amendment of the original complaint in the prayer position and the DCDRF, Kol, Unit-1 allowed the revised complaint petition on 15.04.2016 against which op filed revision no RP/99/2016 in the State Commission, W B. The Ho’nble State Commission allowed on contest setting aside impugned judgement and order of this Forum and asked the District Forum to proceed on the basis of the complaint initially filed.
O.p. contested this case by submitting w/v. Ld. Lawyer of the o.p. has argued that the complaint is frivolous, speculative and as such the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be rejected in limini.
The Sonartari project of the opposite party had been abandoned due to imposition of restriction stipulated by the government and the local authorities and also for some legal impediment. Providing of the developed plot of land to the complainant by the opposite parties was beyond the control of the o.p. and was due to unavoidable circumstances. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant and not liable to pay any compensation, cost etc. to the complainant and as such the prayer for compensation is liable to be rejected.
On the basis of the pleading of the parties the following points are to be decided.
- Whether there was any deficiency in service/UTP on the part of the o.p?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
Decision with reason
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
It is an admitted fact that the complainant paid the consideration according to the agreement and o.p. accepted all the installments in respect of the purchase price of the land including development cost of the land but did not hand over the possession of the land in the name of the complainant. Complainant, time and again, knocked the op with submission of letter dated 07.04.2011, 08.05.2011, 07.09.2011and 08.02.2011 for registration of land but the o.p. remained nonresponsive in this respect till 06.11.2012. Complainant again by letter dated 14.09.2012 further reminded the op for registration of the land in favour of the complainant but no effective steps had been taken by the o.ps. 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 term as UTP. In both the occasions 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 of land with its development and the complainant paid Rs.2,40.000/- including Rs.96,000/-. Since the o.p. discontinued the project and remained unmoved towards refunding the amount to the complainants, 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.396/2012 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. O.p. is directed to pay Rs.2,40,000/-(Rupees two lakh forty thousand) only to the complainant with compensation of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five 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.
