Date of Filing : 15/12/2014
Order No. 22 dt. 10/01/2018
Fact of the case according to the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant booked a plot within the Art City project of M/s Desire Agro Resort Development Private Ltd., P-85,Lake Road, Kolkata-29 (op-1) on 02.02.2004 by payment of Rs.1,37,500/- for purchasing it with its development for residential purpose at Mouza- Darga, area 1800sq.ft. at Dag No.580, Khatian No.632 JL no 64,RS no 239 P S- Sonarpur in South 24-Parganas at a consideration of Rs.1,37,500/-which was paid in 36 installments with last installment being on23.09.2006 and the complainant also paid Rs13,750/-for registration charge. However,op-1 registered an indenture in respect of the land mentioning the schedule. But no deed of conveyance was made and no development on the land was also made in spite of continuous persuasion by the complainant. Complainant visited the spot in October 2014. Finding no other alternative complainant lodged this complaint seeking direction upon the o.p. for refund of the fare of Rs.1,51,250/- together with compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.
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. Ld lawyer of the o.p. argued that in terms of the agreement o.p. already registered the subject plot in favour of the complainant long back on 04.04.2007 before the DSR-IV at South 24-Parganas and by virtue of such deed complainant is the owner of the land. As complainant did not turn up for seeking delivery of the land, o.p. is not liable for deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant. The 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 respective parties the following points are to be decided:
- 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 of land with its development and complainant paid the whole amount of Rs1,37,500/-as fixed by the op against the plot within the time frame. Again on the request of the o.p., complainant paid Rs13,750/- as registration fee for registration of deed of conveyance. Thereafter complainant knocked the o.ps. time and again through notice and personal visit. O.p. registered an indenture on 03.04.2007. But registration of deed of conveyance of the scheduled land had never been made by the o.p. In the contract it was agreed upon by the parties that o.p. will handover the scheduled plot after receiving payment of Rs.1,37,250/- and also the cost of registration of conveyance after developing the land as required. But 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.
Therefore, it is evident that complainant entered into an agreement with o.p. for purchasing a plot with its development and the complainant paid the entire amount in 36 installments. Since the o.p. discontinued the project and did not refund the amount, it is therefore, considered that there was Unfair Trade Practices on the part of the ops. And the complainant is entitled to get relief. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered.
that the case no.755/2014 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. O.ps. are directed, jointly and/or severally to pay Rs.1,51,250/-( Rupees one lakh fifty one thousand two hundred fifty ) only to the complainant with compensation of Rs.10,000/-( Rupees Forty thousand ) only and litigation cost of Rs.4,000/- ( Rupees four 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.
