In  the  Court  of  the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.

CDF/Unit-I/Case No.   322 / 2008.

1)                   Sri Tapas Dey,

B-47, New Raipur (Ganguli Bagan), Kol-84.                                             ---------- Complainant

---Versus---

1)                   Mrs. Gita Roy Biswas,

Proprietress of M/s. Roy Biswas Construction of Chandni Abasan,

22, Vidya Sagar Road, Dum Dum, Kolkata-700065.

Office – Neelamber Building, Flat No. 1/11, 28B, Shakespeare Sarani,

Kolkata-70017.

2)                   The Manager, Bank of India, Salt Lake Branch,

Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064.

3)                   The Chief Manager, Bank of India,

Salt Lake Branch, DD-2, Sector-I, Salt Lake City, Kol-64.                          ---------- Opposite Parties

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.

                        Dr. A. B. Chakraborty, Member

Order No.   3 0    Dated  30/01/2012.

The petition of complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 has been filed by complainant Sri Tapash Dey against Mr. Gita Roy Biswas and others.  The case of the complainant in short is that he booked a flat in the year 2003 from o.p. no.1 under R.S. Dum Dum and entered into an agreement dt.26.1.04 and pursuant to the said agreement complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- in total and balance amount of Rs.7,25,000/- out of total amount of Rs.8,55,000/- were scheduled to be paid by way of instalment. O.p. no.1 assured the complainant to arrange for bank loan of Rs.6 lakhs and the loan was disbursed on 26.2.05 and EMI was fixed of Rs.5210/- per month and the said loan was extended to o.p. no.1 on behalf of complainant and o.p. no.1 issued a receipt of rs.7 lakhs to the complainant vide page 2 of annexure of complainant. Now the moot point centres around that complainant was not possession of the flat in question and as such complainant was not in a position to mortgage the flat as against the sanctioned loan and complainant all through denied that he ever agreed upon to pay the sanctioned loan amount to o.p. no.1 granted by o.p. no.2 and this action on the part of o.p. nos.1 and 2 is highly mala fide one and paints a clear deficiency on the part of the o.ps. being service provider to its consumer / complainant and as such, complainant is entitled to relief as prayed for.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the petition of complaint is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps. O.p. no.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees one lakh thirty thousand) only together with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of payment till the date of realization to the complainant. O.p. nos.2 and 3 are directed not to claim from the complainant Rs.6,18,521/- (Rupees six lakhs eighteen thousand five hundred twenty one) only as the said transaction was not at the insistence of the complainant and for such payment complainant was never agreeable and it is not understood why it was done perhaps the reasons is better known to o.p. nos.1 and 2. O.ps. are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only having equal share of ratio payment 1/3rd of the said amount to be borne by each o.ps. O.p. nos.2 and 3 are directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only to the complainant. O.ps. are directed to comply the above order within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization. O.p. nos. 2 and 3 are hereby directed to issue “no due certificate” in favour of the complainant within the stipulated period as ordered above.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties.

   ____Sd-____                                                   _______Sd-________

     MEMBER                                                           PRESIDENT