DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C.C. No. 396/2018
Date of Filing Date of Admission Date of Disposal
26.09.2018 09.10.2018 27.06.2024
Complainant/s:- | MR. DEBASISH CHAKRABORTY S/O Sibapada Chakraborty permanently residing at "Minati Apartment, Flat no. B/1/5, Mahamaya Tala, Garia Main Road, Kolkata 700084 presently residing at Flat no. 303, Block D, Prakash Choudhury Housing Complex, Tarun Nagar Main Road, ABC, Tarun Nagar, Guwahati - 781005. =Vs= |
Opposite Party/s:- | EXIN REALTY PVT. LTD. (previously EXCELLA REALTORS PVT. LTD.) Having its Office previously at 2, Dharmadas Row, 1st Floor, Kolkata 700026 presently at 8/286, VIP Road, Kaikhali, Block-K-10, P.O. Airport, P.S. Baguiati, District North 24 Parganas, Kolkata- 700052, A registered Pvt. Ltd. Company represented by Managing Director:- (1) SRI DULAL CHANDRA NANDY S/O Late Kali Pada Nandy; and (2) SRI RAJA SAHA S/O Mihir Saha Both are personally works for gain at 8/286, VIP Road, Kaikhali, Block-K-10, P.O. Airport, P.S. Baguiati, District North 24 Parganas, Kolkata-700052. |
P R E S E N T :- Sri. Daman Prosad Biswas……….President.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu…………………. Member.
JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER
Complaisant above named filed this complaint against the aforesaid Opposite Parties praying for direction to the Opposite Parties to refund Rs 8,29,100/- along with interest @ 10% for the period from 26/03/2013 to 31/08/ 2018 amounting to Rs. 4,49,589, compensation amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/-, litigation cost amounting to Rs. 50,000/- and other reliefs.
They alleged that Opposite Parties had started a Real Estate Project namely Sampurna Township Project at Mouza Bishnupur under PS. Rajarhat and they invited application for sell out the plots.
Complainant after seeing the prospectus of the said project showed his interest to purchase a plot measuring 3 Kottah which was vacant plot vide plot no. 140 with a consideration of Rs. 11,40,000/-. Out of the said amount Complainant has paid Rs. 4,56,000/- in 4 monthly installments @ Rs. 1,14,000/- on 08/08/2012, 17/10/2012, 26/11/2012 and 28/02/2013.
Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./
: : 2 : :
C.C. No. 396/2018
After execution of the agreement Complainant demanded the master plan of the project but Respondent company have committed to deliver the same in favour of the Complainant within 2 months from the date of execution of agreement. Rest amount of consideration was required to be paid in 48 equal monthly installments and as per the provision of said agreement for sale Complainant have paid Rs. 3,73,190/- by different installments. By this way Complainant paid total Rs. 8,29,190/-. Thereafter, Complainant made several communications but did not get the aforesaid documents and aforesaid plots.
Complainant subsequently realised that Respondent company have no right title and interest over the schedule property and they have played an unfair trade practice with the Complainant.
Hence, the Complainant is entitled to refund of Rs. 8,29,190/- along with interest amounting to Rs. 4,49,589/-.
Hence, the Complainant filed this case praying for aforesaid reliefs.
O.P No. 2 appeared in this record and filed W/V and denied the entire allegations made in the petition contending inter-alia that case is not maintainable, case is bad in law, allegations are false. They further contended that actually Complainant paid Rs. 8,01,755/-. They further contended that he is ready and willing to make registration of the schedule property in favour of the Complainant after receipt of balance consideration amount of Rs. 6,84,000/-. Не prayed for dismissal of the case.
He also filed statement of accounts in respect of payment of the Complainants.
TRIAL
During Trial Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief. He also filed certain documents.
BNA
Complainant filed BNA. O.P No. 2 filed BNA.
Documents:-
Complainant at the time of filing of this case filed the following documents:-
- Xerox copy of four money receipts @ Rs. 1,14,000/- each.
- Copy of agreement for sale….1 set…Xerox.
- Copy of money receipts for Rs. 30,000/-.
- Copy of money receipts for Rs. 25,000/-.
Contd. To Page No. 3 . . . ./
: :3: :
C.C. No. 396/2018
- Copy of money receipts for Rs. 6,000/-.
- Copy of money receipts for Rs. 2,440/-.
- Copy of money receipts for Rs. 2500/-.
- Copy of money receipts for Rs. 50,000/-.
- Copy of money receipts for Rs. 2,250/-.
- Copy of money receipts for Rs. 30,000/-.
- Copy of money receipts for Rs. 1,00,000/-.
- Copy of money receipts for Rs. 1,25,000/-.
- Copy of email of Debasish Chakraborty.
- Copy of another email of Debasish Chakraborty.
- Reply email of Excella Realtors Pvt. Ltd.
- Copy of email.
- Letter of Complainant addressed to Assistant Director.
- Copy of reply of Assistant Director.
- Copy of minutes of the meeting dated 11/07/2018.
- Copy of record…..3 sheets.
- Copy of letter of Assistant Director.
Complainant also produced original copy of aforesaid documents during hearing of argument.
Decisions with reasons:-
We have carefully gone through the petition of complaint filed by the Complainant. W/V filed by the O.P No. 2, affidavit – in – chief filed by the Complainant, reply filed by the Complainant, affidavit – in – chief filed on behalf of the O.P No. 2, questionnaire filed by the Complainant and reply filed by the O.P No. 2. BNA filed by the Complainant and BNA filed by the O.P No. 2.
It is the main allegation of the Complainant that one agreement for sale was executed in between Complainant and O.Ps and at the time of said agreement he paid Rs. 4,56,000/- and said fact has duly noted over the aforesaid agreement.
Contd. To Page No. 4 . . . ./
: :4: :
C.C. No. 396/2018
On perusal of copy of the said agreement we find that value of the property was settled as 11,40,000/- and aforesaid payment of Rs. 4,56,000/- have been duly noted. O.P No. 2 admitted the said act in his W/V.
So it is clear before us that Complainant has paid Rs. 4,56,000/- at the time of execution of aforesaid agreement.
Complainant further stated that he subsequently paid Rs. 3,73,190/- by 10 occasions. O.P No. 2 in his W/V admitted that Complainant paid some amount subsequently and Complainant paid total amount of Rs. 8,01,755/- whereas the Complainant stated in the petition of complaint that he paid Rs. 8,29,190/-. So, there is a difference of Rs. 27,345/-.
In this context we have carefully gone through 10 original receipts issued by O.P No. 1 company in respect of following payments:-
Accordingly we find that Complainant paid Rs. 3,73,190/-.
We have stated earlier that at the time of execution of agreement Complainant paid Rs. 4,56,000/-. Accordingly we find that Complainant has able to established that he paid Rs. 8,29,190/-.
Complainant further alleged that O.Ps were avoiding the Complainant to deliver the documents relating to the title of the aforesaid landed property which were required for taking loan from financial institutions but inspite of repeated request O.P did not provide those documents.
Contd. To Page No. 5 . . . ./
: :5: :
C.C. No. 396/2018
Lastly Complainant requested the O.P on 02/02/2018 to refund the entire amount but O.P did not pay any heed. Lastly Complainant filed this case praying for aforesaid relief.
During pendency of this case O.P filed a petition stating that the project is ready and O.P is ready and willing to execute the deed of sale in favour of the Complainant. Aforesaid agreement took place on 09/03/2013 but during the last 11 years O.P was silent. He did not take any initiative to hand over the land in favour of the Complainant. Moreover, O.P did not provide the necessary documents of the project relating to title in favour of the Complainant as per his repeated request and for that reason Complainant compelled to change his decision and asked the O.P for refund of the amount but O.P did not provide the necessary documents relating to title of the aforesaid landed property which were required for taking the loan by the Complainant from financial institutions. After expiry of more than 11 years O.P trying to show his readiness which is not acceptable in the eye of law and by producing the aforesaid application O.P cannot washed out his aforesaid latches and deficiency in service. Accordingly the aforesaid contention of the O.P is not acceptable in the eye o law.
On perusal of record we find that Complainant is the consumer and O.Ps are the service provider.
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.
Contd. To Page No. 6 . . . ./
: :6: :
C.C. No. 396/2018
Hence ,
It is
Ordered,
That the present case vide no. C.C./396/2018 be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) to be paid by O.P No. 1-3 in favour of the Complainant and allowed ex-parte against the rest.
O.P No. 1-3 jointly or severally directed to refund Rs. 8,29,190/- (eight lakh twenty nine thousand one hundred and ninety) along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of receipt 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 No. 1-3 jointly or severally directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- (two lakhs) 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
