- Mrs. Suranjita Bhattacharyya,
AA-75, Salt Lake City, Sector-I,
Kolkata - 700064. ____Complainant
____Versus____
- Joyoto Land Development Pvt. Ltd.,
21/2D, Manohorpukur Road,
P.S. Lake, Kolkata-29 and
15, Parashar Road, Kolkata-29.
- Mr. Alok Barman, Managing Director,
Joyoto Land Development Pvt. Ltd.,
21/2D, Manohorpukur Road,
P.S. Lake, Kolkata-29 and
15, Parashar Road, Kolkata-29.
- Mr. Hemanta Nandi, Director,
Joyoto Land Development Pvt. Ltd.,
21/2D, Manohorpukur Road,
P.S. Lake, Kolkata-29 and
15, Parashar Road, Kolkata-29. _____Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 33 Dated 30-10-2014.
The case of the complainant in short is that upon seeing the brochure of the o.ps. and also b eing allured with the promises made by the representatives of the o.ps. the complainant decided to purchase a developed land from the o.ps. and thus the complainant entered into an agreement for sale on 10.5.10 for purchasing a plot of land measuring about 3 cottahs along with the facilities and amenities (being more fully and particularly described in the schedule A, B and C) in all for a consideration of Rs.3,90,000/- from o.ps. on the terms and conditions as stated in the said agreement dt.10.5.10. In this connection it may be stated that the said land was booked on 14.8.06. It is further stated that at the time of booking the complainant was supposed to pay an initial amount of Rs.39,000/- and the rest amount was supposed to be paid in 60 equated monthly instalments of Rs.5850/- each. It is further stated that the complainant thereafter made payments of each and every instalments in terms of the condition imposed by the o.ps. and by the date of the execution of the aforesaid agreement for sale the complainant had already paid a total amount of Rs.2,78,850/- to the o.ps. and that was also acknowledged by the o.ps. in the agreement for sale itself and the rest amount was supposed to be paid by the complainant in the manner as aforesaid.
It is further stated that in terms of the said agreement o.ps. were supposed to do some acts regarding the development of the land such as construction of the park, dispensary pond etc. as stated in the said agreement and the entire work of the development of the said project was supposed to be completed within 5 years from the date of booking by o.ps. and the complainants were promised to be given the possession of the said land along with all facilities and amenities within the said period as mentioned in the schedule A, B and C of the said agreement.
The company, the party of the first party herein, shall complete the sale in respect of the said plot of land in project “SONARTORI UPANAGARI” directly by registered Deed of Conveyance upon completion of the project and payment of entire consideration and upon expiry of the term of this agreement having demarcated the said plot of land and developed complete in all respect.
It is further stated that the complainant on a number of occasions, during her visits to India, visited the office of o.ps. to enquire about the development of the project and the complainant was told by the representatives of the o.ps. that the land would be delivered in time along with all facilities and amenities in terms of the promises made and she was asked to go on making payments. It is further stated that when only two instalments were left to be paid by the complainant she tried to make payment of the same and also get the sale deed with respect to the said plot of land executed and registered in her own name but to the utter surprise and great dismay of the complainant the cheques being cheque dt.14.7.11 and also the cheque dt.16.7.11 towards the payment of the remaining two instalments were refused to be accepted by the o.ps. for the reasons best known to them. It is further stated that thereafter for the reasons best known to o.ps. the Managing Director of the company being Alok Barman being o.p. no.2 herein started avoiding complainants because each and every commitments made by him was being proved to be false and he was finding himself to answer less on the issue of non fulfillment of the promises made by him on behalf of the o.ps.
It is further stated that in the mean time it came to knowledge of complainant that o.ps. had changed the nature and character of the project in such a manner that facilities and amenities which were supposed to be provided to the complainant was interfered. It is further understood that the o.ps. have started preparing selling the plots to others making gross violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement.
Complainant further states and submits that as a service provider it was the responsibility of the o.ps. to act in terms of the agreement and to deal with the complainant properly so that the complainant might not suffer any loss due to their act and/or omission but the o.ps. miserably failed and neglected to perform their duties as a service provider and adopted unfair means to harass the complainant for their illegal gain by defrauding the complainant and also by making attempts to sell the other plots to other persons in such a fashion that the agreement by and between the parties is bound to be violated.
Decision with reasons:
O.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.ps. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and it is observed that complainant booked the said flat at a consideration of Rs.13 lakhs and complainant paid Rs.9,29,800/- at the time of booking and balance amount of Rs.3,70,.000/- was supposed to be paid by 19 equal installments and complainant paid 17 installments out of 19 installments. It is further seen from the record that o.p. undertook the project, but due to land dispute the land under the said project could not be acquired and as such, in spite of sincere efforts and attempts the project was abandoned. O.p. requested the complainant to take back the deposited money but complainant did not accept the said offer. O.p. in their w/v stated that acquisition of land under the said project was not possible due to land dispute and the problem was beyond control.
In view of the findings above and on careful scrutiny of the entire materials on record we find that complainant has substantiated her case as o.ps. had deficiency in service on their part and as such, complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps. O.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to pay the entire amount deposited by complainant to o.ps. and are further directed to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty five thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
