Date of Judgement : 04.04.2019
MRS. SASHI KALA BASU, HON’BLE PRESIDENT
This consumer complaint is filed by Shri Probhas Chatterjee under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against Opposite Parties namely (1) Golden Point Landcon Pvt. Ltd. (2) Shri Dipankankar Naskar (3)Sahabuddin Pailan (4) Sanowar Ali Pailan (5) Samsul Ali Pailan (6) Arjina Sardar alleging deficiency in service on their part.
Case of the complainant in short is that OP Nos. 3 to 5 are the owners of the land mentioned in the schedule. They executed the Power of Attorney which was duly registered on 22.08.2013 in favour of the Dipankar Naskar OP No.2, the Managing Director of OP No.1. The OP Nos. 1 and 2 executed an agreement for sale on 10.05.2014 to transfer a piece of land measuring 3 cotthas on a total consideration price of Rs. 7,50,000/-. OP Nos. 1 and 2 undertook to develop the land before execution and registration of the deed of conveyance within 36 months from the date of execution of agreement for sale. Complainant has paid a total sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- but the OPs deliberately violated the terms and conditions and failed to execute the deed of conveyance. They also did not refund the money despite repeated requests by the complainant along with the interest. Complainant was compelled to cancel the agreement for sale as the terms and conditions was not complied by the OPs. A notice was also sent by the complainant through his Ld. Advocate to the OPs but all in vain. So, the present complaint is filed directing the OPs to refund Rs. 6,00,000/-, to pay interest with effect from 07.05.2016 @ 18% p.a, to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and the cost of proceedings.
OP Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7 have contested the case by filing the W.V. denying and disputing the allegations stating inter alia that the said OPs had no knowledge about the agreement between the complainant and the OP No.1. Fulchand Bibi expired on 18.05.2015 and as such General Power of Attorney executed in favour of the OP Nos. 1 and 2 automatically came to an end. Thus, OP Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7 have prayed for dismissal of the case against them.
OP Nos. 1 and 2 have also filed W.V. admitting that consideration money of Rs. 6,00,000/- is paid by the complainant. It is contended that the project work was to be completed within stipulated period but due to some unforeseen complications, the project work got delayed. So, complainant was offered to switch over to the land in another project in alternative. Thus, these OPs have also prayed for dismissal of the case.
During the course of evidence, both the parties have adduced evidence followed by filing questionnaire and reply thereto. Ultimately, argument has also been advanced. It has been argued by the Ld. Advocate appearing for the OP Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7 that as per General Power of Attorney, the OP Nos. 1 and 2 was never empowered to develop the land. The Power of Attorney restricted to the sale of the same. So, it is argued that the case is not maintainable before this Forum.
So, the following points require determination:
- Whether there has been any deficiency in rendering services on the part of the OPs ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
Point Nos. 1 & 2 : Both points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and in order to avoid the repetition. Complainant’s claim is that there was an agreement dated 10.05.2014 between him and the OP Nos. 1 and 2 being the Constituted Attorney of OP Nos. 3 to 7 to sell a piece of land measuring about 3 cotthas on consideration of Rs. 7,50,000/-. As per the agreement, the land was to be developed before execution and registration of the deed of conveyance within 36 months but the OPs neither executed the deed nor handed over the possession of land. They have also not refunded the amount paid by the complainant of Rs. 6,00,000/- . On perusal of the W.V. filed by OP Nos. 1 and 2, it is evident that the payment of Rs. 6,00,000/- out of total sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- by the complainant has not been disputed and denied. The execution of agreement by the OP Nos. 1 and 2 has also not been denied. Only contention raised by the OP Nos. 1 and 2 is that due to unforeseen complications, the said project work had got delayed and so complainant was offered to switch over to an alternative land in Thakurpukur. So, the said statement of the OP in the W.V. is clear that he agreed to develop the land before executing deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant but the same has not been done and so there has been deficiency in rendering services. However, the argument is advanced on behalf of the OP Nos. 3 4, 5 and 7 that there was no such power given to the OP Nos. 1 and 2 to develop the land. On a careful perusal of the Power of Attorney admittedly executed in favour of OP Nos. 1 and 2 by OP nos. 3 to 7, it is apparent that OP No. 2 was empowered to sell the land. However, he was restrained from raising any construction and the development. But it appears consequent to the said terms of selling of the land, the agreement was entered into by the OP Nos. 1 and 2 for selling a piece of land to the complainant. So, even though OP Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7 cannot be held to be liable for the act of OP Nos. 1 and 2, but OP Nos. 1 and 2 cannot escape from their liability for not complying the agreement after accepting the consideration price of Rs. 6,00,000/- specially when the ‘Consumer Protection Act‘ is a ‘beneficiary legislation’ to provide speedy relief to the ‘Consumer’. The agreement of sale between OP Nos. 1 & 2 and the complainant is very categorical that OP Nos. 1 & 2 presented to the complainant that they were empowered to develop the land as it was agreed that OP would develop the land within 36 months from the date of agreement. So, OP Nos. 1 and 2 are liable to refund Rs. 6,00,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 18% p.a. agreed in the agreement. Since interest is allowed, there is no justification to allow the compensation as prayed.
These points are thus answered accordingly.
Hence,
Ordered
CC/ 686/2017 is allowed on contest against OP Nos. 1 and 2 and dismissed against OP Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7. OP Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to refund Rs. 6,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from 27.05.2016 to till this date within two months from the date of this order in default the entire sum shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. till realisation.
