Order-13.
Date-16/03/2017.
Smt. Sangita Paul, Member.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant’s case in short is that on 5th April,2015 complainant booked an apartment measuring about 755 sq. ft. (super built up area), being Unit No.6H on the 6th floor, Block-5 for a total consideration of Rs.2,20,000/- and subsequently paid amount of Rs.4,55,400/- as an initial payment and service tax against the said booking. He booked the flat from GCJInfraworldLLP. O.P.-3 (Head- Marketing GCJInfraworld LLP) assured complainant that they would provide allotment letter within seven days from the date of initial payment. But the O.Ps. neither provided allotment letter nor executed agreement for sale till the date of filing of this complaint in respect of the said flat. Complainant sent advocate letter on 12/07/2016 to the O.Ps. to refund the said earnest money of Rs.4,55,400/- within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of notice. But the O.Ps. intentionally neglected to make payment of the earnest money amounting to Rs.4,55,400/-.
The complainant states that the claim of Rs.4,55,400/- along with interest of 18 percent till the realization of the said amount, Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation, against mental agony and harassment caused by said illegal acts of the opposite patries and Rs.15,000/- towards litigation expenses connected herewith should be made over to them.
Complainant prays for a total amount of Rs.5,70,400/- which includes claim, compensation for harassment and litigation expenses caused due to negligence and deficiency in service by the opposite parties.
O.P.-1 in his written version states that the complaint petition is vexatious and liable to be dismissed. Complainant has not come with clean hands and as such is not entitled to any relief.
O.P.-3 Mr. Bhupindar Singh, Head- Marketing Officer, GCJ Infraworld LLP took care of the housing project in Ankurhati, Howrah denies that complainant was convinced by the said O.P.-3. The fact is that complainant approached to O.P.-3 to purchase a flat measuring about 755 sq. ft. super built up area with a consideration of Rs.2,20,000/-. Complainant paid Rs.4,55,400/- only. O.Ps. deny of providing an allotment letter and executing agreement for sale within seven days from the date of said initial payment. The O.Ps. denied each and every allegations levelled against him. The O.Ps. state that O.Ps. have no intentional latches to return the said money. The O.Ps. are ready to pay the said amount i.e. Rs.4,55,400/- only to the complainant. In the opinion of O.Ps. the complaint petition is vague and ambiguous and devoid of any merit. The O.Ps. find no relevance in the facts and circumstances to the instant case. Complainant could make out a prima facie case against the O.Ps. to allow relief as prayed for. O.ps. pray for rejection of complaint petition with exemplary cost.
O.Ps. file a petition relating to non-maintainability of the complaint on the point of pecuniary jurisdiction. O.P.-1 states that the application is not maintainable in present form. O.P.-1 states that all other statements made in the petition are not correct and as such denied. Complainant approached to purchase a flat with a consideration of Rs.2,20,000/- only. As per Section-11 of C. P. Act, 1986 as amended up to date the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complainants where value of goods or services and the compensation does not exceed Rs.twenty lakhs. So this Ld. Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present case filed by the complainant. Even the amount of compensation claimed in respect of these goods which has to be taken into consideration for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum. Complainant files this case for squeezing money from O.Ps. O.Ps. pray for dismissal of the case.
Decision with Reasons
We have gone through the documents on record i.e. complaint petition, written version, E/Chief of complainant, money receipts, photocopy of letters addressed to the O.Ps. and letters addressed to the complainant and other materials on record.
From the documents on record it is revealed that complainant booked the subject flat at Ankurbati, Howrah under Vivanta Project by paying an amount of Rs.4,55,400/- only on 05/04/2015. In their written version they have admitted the fact that complainant had paid Rs.4,55,400/- only to the O.Ps. The O.ps. have also admitted that their project had not materialized. Then complainant is entitled to get back the said amount of Rs.4,55,400/- only. O.ps. in their written version admitted that they had no intentional latches to return the said money, then the cause of non-payment of the said amount till the institution of the case is better known to them. On 23/04/2015, complainant wanted to get the money receipt of token payment. After these mails they sent mail to complainant on 18/06/2015. O.P’s activities prove that they are too reluctant to discharge their duties. O.Ps. did not send all the money receipts to complainant and informed the O.Ps.of not getting the money receipts of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.40,000/- on April, 09, 2015.Complainant demanded the money receipt. As the payment made by complainant and O.Ps. are delaying in starting the construction, it is quite obvious that O.ps. are to refund the amount of Rs.4,55,400/- paid by complainant from time to time. On April, 7, 2015 complainant sent Rs.77,000/-in two steps. Complainant is sending his hard earned money to purchase a flat and the O.Ps. do not find it important to send the money receipt in time. After payment complainant requested them to send the money receipts. Complainant is deprived of getting proper service from the O.ps. Hence complainant is also entitled to get compensation along with the amount of Rs.4,55,400/- for mental agony, harassment and pain.
As per Section-11 of C. P. Act, 1986 the District Forum cannot entertain complaints the value of which exceeds Rs.20,00,000/-. But in this case the claim of complainant is Rs.4,55,400/- along with compensation, litigation cost and interest which do not exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of District Forum. It is not the value of goods and service, but the main consideration is the amount claimed. In view of the facts, the case is maintainable in the District Forum and this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the case.
The O.Ps. did not file E/Chief. So we think that O.Ps. have been deficient in service and we also think that complainant needs to be compensated for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for intentional and deliberate negligence of the O.Ps.
In result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered
The complaint be and the same is contested against the O.Ps. with a cost of Rs.10,000/-.
O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed to pay bulk Rs.4,55,400/- to complainant along with interest at the rate of10 percent p.a. till compliance within one month from the date of this order.
O.ps.-1, 2 and 3 are also jointly and severally directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to complainant for causing harassment, mental pain and agony and for adopting unfair trade practice.
Failure to comply with the order will entitle the complainant to put the order into execution u/s.25 read with Section 27 of the C.P. Act and in that case OP shall be liable to pay penal damage at the rate ofRs.5,000/- per month to be paid to this Forum till full and final satisfaction of the decree.
