DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,

 KOLKATA-700 0144

      C.C. CASE NO. __40_ _ OF ___2018

DATE OF FILING : 29.3.2018    DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:18 .2.2019

Present                 :   President       :   Ananta Kumar Kapri

                                 Member(s)    :    Jhunu Prasad

COMPLAINANT   :    Sri Satyen Panigrahi, son of Maheshwar Panigrahi of 4/1, Netaji Nagar, C/o. T.K Ghosh, Kolkata-40. 

•  VERSUS  -

O.P/O.Ps                    :  Joyotu Land Development Pvt. Ltd. 21/2D, Monoharpukur Road, P.S Lake, Kolkata-29.

__________________________________________________________________

                                                J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

Sri Ananta kapri, President

               The facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follows.

               Complainant agreed to purchase a plot of land from O.P for residential purpose in the dream child project “Sonartari Upanagari” of the O.P. A Sale Agreement dated 30.6.2006 was also executed by and between the complainant and the O.P and thereby the O.P agreed to sell a plot of land measuring about 8 cattah to the complainant for a total consideration price of Rs.8 lac. The complainant paid Rs.4 lac in all. The balance amount of consideration price was to be paid on the date of registration and delivery of possession by the O.P. But the O.P is not willing to register the sale deed in favour of the complainant. Repeated requests for having registered deed from the O.P have ended in smoke. Therefore, the complainant has come up before this Forum by filing the instant case , praying for registration, possession and compensation and/or alternatively to refund the consideration price paid to the O.P with compensatory interest. Hence, this case.

               The O.P has been contesting the case by filing written statement ,wherein it is contended inter alia that he took the money from the complainant and also agreed to sell a plot of land to him. But, due to unrest created by local people, he was compelled to abandon the project and also wanted to refund the money received from the complainant ,to the complainant. But the complainant did not agree to accept the money from him.  He has no laches on his part. There is no deficiency in service on his part as alleged by the complainant and he is still ready and willing to return the money received from the complainant.

                Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.

POINT FOR DETERMINATION

1. Is the O.P guilty of  deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant ?
2. Is the complainant  entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?

EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES

         Evidence on affidavit is led by both the parties. BNA is filed by the complainant and the same is kept in the record after consideration.

DECISION WITH REASONS

Point no.1 & 2 :

                  In the instant case, it is admitted that the complainant paid Rs.4 lac to the O.P out of total consideration price of Rs.8 lac. The last payment was made by the complainant on 3.7.2006 as stated in the petition of complaint and this averment of the complainant also goes undisputed. It is stated by the O.P that due to agitation of the local people, he has been compelled to abandon the project. There is no document whatsoever filed on record to prove that the local people caused disturbance and that is why, the O.P was compelled to abandon the project. It has been a practice on the part of some unscrupulous traders to squeeze money from the public under the garb of completion of a project in relation to offering residential plot or flat to the purchasers and, thereafter, to abandon the project after expiry of some years. This is certainly unfair trade practice and also a device to squeeze money from the public.

                     The instant O.P has done the same thing . He has squeezed money from the complainant having lulled him into believing that he would sell a plot of land in his dream project to the complainant for a consideration price of Rs.8 lac. He recovered Rs.4 lac from the complainant out of Rs.8 lac and thereafter, went in slumber without doing anything for the progress of his project. He did not do anything for development of his progress and he kept himself deliberately away from the accomplishment of the project, because his motive was to squeeze money from the innocent public like the complainant. The O.P has adopted unfair trade practice ; he will have to return the money received from the complainant. He received the money from the complainant in the year 2006 and now it is 2019. 13 years have already passed away. During this period the money received by the O.P from the complainant  would have been doubled the amount he received from the complainant. Regards being had to this aspect, we are inclined to hold that the O.P will have to pay Rs. 4lac as compensation to the complainant .

              In the result, the case succeeds  .

              Hence,

ORDERED

             That the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P with a copy of Rs.10,000/-.

             The O.P is directed to refund Rs.4 lac to the complainant with compensation by way of interest @12% p.a from the last date of payment i.e 3.7.2006 till full realization thereof, within a month of this order, failing which                                                                        the complainant is at liberty to recover the said amounts by execution of this order through the machinery of this Forum.

         Let a free plain copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.   

                                                                                                                                                President

I / We agree

                                                            Member

            Dictated and corrected by me

                                                  President