Date of filing: 31.01.2018 Date of disposal: 06.08.2018
Complainant: Benoy Biswas, S/o. Late Basanta Biswas, resident of St. No. 84, Quarter No. 23/29 B, PO: Chittaranjan, Dist: Burdwan, PIN – 713 331, presently residing at Quarter No. 7A, Street No. 3, PO: Chittaranjan, Dist: Burdwan, PIN – 713 331.
Opposite Party: 1. Hahnemann Housing & Development (P) Ltd., Represented by its Director, Having its office Branch Office at Durgapur, Sanjib Sarani, Aesby More, Durgapur, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 213.
2. Kalidas Mukherjee, S/o. Late Rabi Lochan Mukherjee, Director of Hahnemann Housing & Development (P) Ltd., having his residence at Beliatore, PO. & PS: Beliatore, Dist: Bankura, PIN – 722 203.
Present:
Hon’ble President: Smt. Jayanti Maitra (Ray).
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Nivedita Ghosh.
Hon’ble Member: Dr. Tapan Kumar Tripathy.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Suvro Chakraborty.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 1&2: None (ex parte).
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the Ops as the Ops have not handed over the allotted land as per agreement by and between the parties.
The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant after consulting with their friends and relatives, came to learn that the Ops are selling plots by creating a project, namely, “Santiban-XI” in reasonable price along with basic structure and on consultation with Ops the complainant agreed to sold a piece of land in the projected area for Rs. 4, 00,000=00 (Rs. 1, 60,000=00 per cottah). Thereafter consultation with the OPs the complainant made payment of Rs. 80,000=00 on 26.03.2013 and the OP-1&2 issued a money receipt and they also issued a certificate of booking on 26.03.2013, which is valid up to 02.05.2016 in favour of the complainant as required booking amount and on payment of such booking amount the Ops would execute an agreement for sale with him. From the certificate it will appear that the Ops had registered the booking of scheduled mentioned plot in favour of the complainant vide B.F. No. 307745. From the beginning the Ops were reluctant to make the agreement and after several request the Ops made the agreement for sale on 30.10.2013. The Ops also issued a book of EMI as the remaining amount had to be paid by the complainant in 36 installments.
As per agreement the complainant paid the total price of Rs. 4,00,000=00, excluding the booking amount in 36 installments and the Ops are bound to complete all necessary works at the schedule mentioned plot and hand over the same within 3 years i.e. within 02.05.2016. As per agreement in case of withdrawal from the scheme after full payment receipt amount will be refunded in full along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
Inspite of all installments the Ops failed to fulfill their parts and liabilities by way of non-completion of the work as well as execution of the registered Deed of Sale in favour of the complainant. Finding no other alternative he desired to withdraw the booking from the scheme and requested the Ops to refund his money as per agreement and the Ops also agreed to refund the same, for which the Ops asked the complainant for submitting all the original documents before them and the complainant submitted all the original documents before the Ops.
After submitting all the documents before the Ops, for several times requested them for refunding his money but the Ops did not bother to give any reply to the complainant. Being so aggrieved the complainant knocked the door of the Durgapur Consumer Affairs Department and lastly compelled to file the present case before this ld. Forum with a prayer for directing the OPs to refund an amount of Rs. 4, 00,000=00 with interest @12% p.a. as per agreement from 29.10.2016 to date of realization, directing the Ops to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000=00 towards mental pain, agony and harassment and a sum of Rs. 30,000=00 towards litigation cost.
The cause of action arose on 29.10.2016. After filing the present application, the complainant sent proper notice to the O.Ps. and the O.Ps. also received the same but failed to appear and accordingly it is fixed for ex parte hearing.
Now points for consideration:
Whether the complainant able to prove that he is entitled to receive total payment i.e., Rs. 4, 00,000=00 along with other claims from the Ops?
Let us consider how far complainant has able to prove the same against the Ops.
Decision with reasons:
To prove the allegation against the Ops the complainant has filed his evidence-in-chief through affidavit along with documents which are (i) Xerox copies of booking certificate dated 26.03.2013, (ii) Xerox copy of payment of Rs. 80,000=00 dated 26.03.2013, (iii) Agreement for sale, (iv) Xerox copy of receipt of documents dated 20.4.2016.
The complainant booked to purchase a plot of land on 26.03.2013 on payment of booking amount Rs. 80,000=00 from the Ops and the Ops also issued a certificate vide B.F. No. 307745 on the same day for receiving the said amount of Rs. 80,000=00 which was valid up to 02.05.2016.
It further appears that complainant has also able to prove that an agreement was executed between him with the Ops under some terms and conditions and also able to prove that the Ops failed to fulfill the said terms and conditions either by executing deed of conveyance or by refund all money which received from the complainant.
It also appears that the complainant has also able to prove that Ops agreed to pay money and for that asked the complainant to produce original papers i.e. original sale agreement, original booking certificate, original EMI Book, original 1st booking counterpart and as such the complainant produced all the papers but the Ops are kept themselves mum regarding this.
After perusing all the documents as produced by the complainant it is clear to us that there is no dispute that the complainant has able to prove him as consumer and the Ops are failed to render service by obey the terms and conditions of agreement. At the same time it is also clear from the attitude of both the Ops that they have received summons but not contested by filing written version.
Accordingly it is clear that there is no dispute that the complainant is able to prove that the Ops are liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. So the complainant is entitled to get back the money deposited to the account of the Ops and also entitled to get compensation towards deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, harassment and mental agony and also entitled to get litigation cost.
Hence, the complaint succeeds. Accordingly, it is
O r d e r e d
that the present Consumer Complaint being No. 18/2018 be and the same is allowed ex parte against the Ops with cost. The O.P. Nos. 1&2 are directed to pay Rs. 4, 00,000=00 (Rs. Four lacks) only either jointly or severally to the complainant along with interest @12% per annum from 29.10.2016 to till date of realization and the O.P. Nos. 1&2 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000=00 ( Rs. Twenty five thousand) only as mental pain and harassment and Rs. 5,000=00 (Rs. Five thousand) only as litigation cost within 45 (forty five) days from the date of passing of this order, in default, the complainant is at liberty to put the entire award in execution as per provisions of law.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.
Dictated & Corrected by me: (Jayanti Maitra (Ray)
President
(Nivedita Ghosh) DCDRF, Burdwan
President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Tapan Kumar Tripathy) (Nivedita Ghosh)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
