DIST. CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESAL  COMMISSION

NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.

C.C. No. 624/2016

Date of Filing                          Date of Admission        Date of Disposal

      29.09.2016                                05.10.2016                     14.08.2024

P R E S E N T               :- Sri. Daman Prosad Biswas……….President.

                                       :- Sri.  Abhijit Basu…………………. Member.

JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER

Complainant above named filed this complaint against the aforesaid Opposite Party praying for direction to refund entire booking amount, compensation amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-, cost of the case amounting to Rs. 50,000/- and other reliefs.

She alleged that she being influenced by the advertisement of O.P came before him then O.P gave him one application copy after receipt of Rs. 10,000/-. She paid the said amount by cheque which was encashed on 02/06/2015. She also gave another cheque of Rs. 40,000/- to the O.P which was encashed on 03/06/2015. She also gave another cheque of Rs. 2,90,000/- to the O.P which was encashed on 02/07/2015. By this way Complainant paid Rs. 3,40,000/- in favour of the O.P. But O.P as per their assurance did not take any initiative to hand over the booking flat in favour of the Complainant. Hence, the Complainant filed this case praying for aforesaid reliefs.

O.Ps appeared in this record and filed W/V and denied the entire allegation made in the petition of compliant. He further contending that Complainant has no cause of action to file this case, he further contend that the case is not maintainable as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He prays for dismissal of the case.

Contd. To page no. 2 . . . ./

: :2: :

          C.C. No. 624/2016

Decisions with reasons:-

We have carefully gone through the petition of complaint filed by the Complainant. W/V filed by the O.P, affidavit – in – chief filed by the Complainant, affidavit – in – chief filed by the O.P, documents filed by the Complainant, BNA filed by the Complainant dated 22/01/2019, BNA filed by the Complainant on 15/01/2024, BNA filed by the O.P No. 1 dated 15/01/2024.

We have heard the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant at length on the date of hearing argument.

On the date of hearing argument i.e. on 06/08/2024 O.P was absent without any steps as a result we could not get any chance to hear the O.P on the point of dispute.

We have carefully gone through the documents filed by the Complainant at the time of filing of this case. We find from the copy of document dated 30/06/2015 issued by the O.P that Complainant booked one flat before the O.P and till 30/06/2015 Complainant paid Rs. 3,40,000/- in favour of the O.P.

At the time of hearing argument Ld. Advocate for the Complainant argued that inspite of payment of aforesaid sum of Rs. 3,40,000/- O.P did not take any initiative to hand over the flat or to execute deed of conveyance in his favour. Even the O.P did not take any initiative to refund the aforesaid amount.

He further argued that aforesaid project is now incomplete stage as a result Complainant is suffering badly for want of a residence.

He further argued that there is no possibility to complete the project within a very short period. Moreover, O.P has no intention to hand over the flat in favour of the Complainant. He prays for necessary order.

We have stated earlier that vide letter dated 30/06/2015 O.P clearly stated that he had received Rs. 3,40,000/- from the Complainant but O.P did not give any satisfactory explanation in his W/V as to why he did not provide the aforesaid flat in favour of the Complainant.

Accordingly we think that the aforesaid act of the O.P is nothing but deficiency in service.

Accordingly we think that necessary order and compensation should be passed against the O.P.

On perusal of record we find that Complainant is the consumer and O.Ps are the service provider.

Contd. To page no. 3 . . . ./

: :3: :

          C.C. No. 624/2016

          Having regard to the aforesaid discussion it is clear before us that Complainant has able to established his grievance by sufficient documents beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly Complainant is entitled to relief as per his prayer.

          In the result, present case succeeds.

          Hence,

                             It is,

                                      Ordered,

          That the present case vide no. C.C./624/2016 be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P with cost of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) to be paid by O.P in favour of the Complainant.

          O.P is directed to pay Rs. 3,40,000/- in favour of the Complainant along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of received of the said amount to till the date of actual payment preferably within 45 days from this day failing which the Complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.

          O.P is directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- in favour of the Complainant as compensation for her harassment, mental pain & agony preferably within 45 days from this day failing which the Complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.

          Let a plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.

Dictated and Corrected by me

President

Member                                                                                  President