Date of filing:  23.02.2017                                                                   Date of disposal: 01.06.2018

Complainant:              Smt. Tanima Chatterjee, W/o. Sri Partha Sarthi Chatterjee, resident of 75, Kumarpur, Saradapally, Asansol, Oppoisite of Eureka Forbes Ltd., PS: Asansol (South), District: West Burdwan, PIN – 713 304.

• V E R S U S  -

Opposite Party:           1.  Hahnemann Housing & Development (P) Ltd., Having its Office at B/16, Katjunagar, behind Katjunagar Swarnamayee Viddyapith, Kolkata, Pin -700 032, represented by its Director.

                                    2. Sri Kalidas Mukherjee, S/o. Rabilachan Mukherjee, one of the Directors of Hahnemann Housing & Development (P) Ltd., its office at Durgapur at Esbay More, Opposite of Dreamland Nursing Home, Durgapur -1, and also residing at PO: & PS: Beliator, Opposite to Jamene Roy College, District: 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(s):               Ld. Advocate, Panchali Chatterjee & Debdas Rudra.

Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 1&2: None  (ex parte)

J U D G E M E N T

This is a case u/S. 12 of the C. P.  Act, 1986 directing an award of Rs. 20,000=00 along with 25% consideration money of Rs. 4,60,000=00 from the date of payment, Rs. 2,00,000=00 for mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs. 30,000=00 towards litigation cost.

The case in short is that the OP-2 planted to develop a land by constructing metal road to reach the plots of land along with surface side-drain and other necessary works pertaining to the basic infrastructure and to divide the side land into small plots according to the plan. The complainant wanted to purchase the plot no. 222 in the scheme plan proposed by the OP-1 measuring 2 cottas. The total price of each plot including basic infrastructure development cost being Rs. 4,60,000=00 only calculated as Rs. 2,30,000=-00 per cotta. The complainant, intending to purchase the plot No. 222 had an agreement with the Ops on 30^th October, 2012. The complainant paid a total of Rs. 4, 60,000=00 and the OP-1 received it and acknowledged in the said agreement. Apart from the agreement, a certificate dated 28.09.2012 was also issued to the complainant acknowledging the booking amount from the complainant through a cheque drawn on Axis Bank ltd. According to the agreement the Ops did have the responsibility to complete all the necessary work within 3 years from the execution of the agreement. But they failed to complete it within the time. The complainant requested them several times to complete the documents and hand over the plot. But the Ops did not pay any heed to those requests. Being dissatisfied the complainant decided not to purchase the land and requested the Ops to refund Rs. 4,60, 000=00 with 25% appreciation per 1& ½ year. But the Ops did not intend to refund the money. After that the complainant visited the office of the OP-1 on 10.12.2016 where the OP-2 on behalf of the OP-1 acknowledged writing that it was their liability to pay Rs. 4,60,000=00 including admissible interest as per terms and conditions of the agreement through RTGS within 15.01.2015 to 31.01.2016. But they failed to fulfill it. They paid only Rs. 1, 00,000=00 by 31.01.2016. After the expiry of the aforesaid period, the Ops made very poor and irregular payment by part on 02.02.2016, 25.02.2016, 04.06.2016, 28.06.2016 and lastly they repaid a sum of Rs. 60,000=00 on 01.07.2016 by a cheque on account of their debit. By all these, they repaid only Rs. 4, 40,000=00. The complainant made several requests to repay the further balance amount along with 25% appreciation per 1 & ½ year as per agreement, but the Ops did not do that. Initially the Ops used to give verbal assurance over the phone, but later they did not bother to receive the phone calls or response.

The Ops, in this case, neither appeared nor filed their written version. Hence they are considered as ex pate.

Decision with reasons:

Undisputedly the Ops had an agreement with the complainant which they failed to fulfill. Moreover, the complainant made several requests to refund the amount with 25% per 1 & ½ year. But the Ops refunded Rs. 20,000=00 less than the total amount exceeding the scheduled time. Here, with all the documents and proofs, the complainant succeeds to prove her case.

Hence, it is

O r d e r e d

that the Consumer Complaint being No. 33/2017 be and the same is allowed ex parte against the Ops with cost with a direction to pay either jointly or severally Rs. 20,000=00 along with 25% appreciation per 1 & ½ year to the complainant within 45 days from the date of passing of this award, failing which, the Ops will pay interest @12% per annum for the default period and the Ops should also pay either jointly or severally Rs. 5,000=00 as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs. 2,000=00 as litigation cost to the complainant, in default, the complainant is at liberty to put the entire award in execution as per provisions of law.

Let plain copies of this award be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions lf law.  

Dictated & Corrected by me:                                                         (Jayanti Maitra (Ray)

                                                                                                                       President

        (Tapan Kumar Tripathy)                                                               DCDRF, Burdwan

                 President

           DCDRF, Burdwan

                                        (Tapan Kumar Tripathy)                              (Nivedita Ghosh)

                                                   Member                                                     Member

                                           DCDRF, Burdwan                                       DCDRF, Burdwan