In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No.192/2006.
1) (Sri) Chandan Roy,
153, JodhpurPark, P.S.Lake, Calcutta-68. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) (Smt) Jyotsna Sen,
2) (Sri) Asit Ranjan Sen,
Both 1 & 2 are residents of 18/A, LakeTerrace,
P.S. Tollygunge, Kolkata-29.
3) (Smt) Anjalika Roy,
4) (Smt) Manjulika Roy,
Both 3 & 4 are residents of 10/3, Charu Avenue,
P.S. Tollygunge, Kolkata-29.
5) (Sri) Salil Kumar Sen,
B/133, Kiriti Nagar, Tank Road, Jaipore-302015.
6) (Smt) Rama Sen,
7) (Smt) Swpana Roy,
Both 6 & 7 are residets of
B1/123, Bharti Nagar, New Delhi-110003.
8) (Smt) Krishna Ghosh,
IB-7, Flat no.6, SaltLake, Sector-III, Kolkata-91.
9) (Sri) Kishalaya Sen,
CE-129, SaltLake, Sector-I, Kolkata-64.
10) (M/S.) Universal Consortium of Engineer (P) Ltd.,
239, Deshpran Sashmal Road,
P.S. Tollygunge, Calcutta-33, represented by
one of its director (Sri) Devjoy Mitra. ---------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 63 Dated 27/11/2013.
The case of the complainant in short is that in the year 2001, o.p. no.10 company was developing All That the premises no.114C, Selimpore Road, P.S. Jadavpore, Calcutta-31, when the complainant coming to know of the same, agreed to purchase out of the allocation of o.p. no.10 company All That proposed Flat (no.C1), to be situated on the front side of the First Floor and a garage to be situated on the Ground Floor of the then proposed G+3 storied building to be raise by o.,p. no.10 company on the said premises, at and for a price of Rs.12,75,000/- only. The terms and conditions for the said transaction agreed upon by and between the parties hereto, were put down in a tripartite agreement dt.30.8.01. In pursuance of their negotiation and subsequent agreement, the complainant even made payment of Rs.9,.50,000/- only to o.p. no.10 on or about 29.8.01, 30.8.01 and 6.9.01, against receipts thereof.
However, in the year 2003, o.p. no.10 company suggested to the complainant to exchange his booking of the aforesaid Flat (no.C1) at premises no.114C, Selimpore Road, Calcutta for one at their new site at 18A, Maharaja Nanda Kumar Road, Calcutta-29 at and for a price of Rs.16,50,000/- against which the sum of Rs.9,50,000/- already advanced till then for the aforesaid Flat at 114C, Selimpore Road, Calcutta would stand adjusted.
The said new site at the said premises no.18A, Maharaja Nanda Kumar Road, Calcutta-29, being a better located one and being in a more posh locality than the previous 114C, Selimpore Road, the complainant agreed to the suggestion of o.p. no.10 and exchanged his booking of the aforesaid Flat (no.C1) at 114C, Selimpore Road, for all that the proposed Flat no.A1, to be situated on the First Floor and a garage to be situated on the Ground Floor of the proposed G=4 storied building, to be then raised on the said premises no.18A, Maharaja Nanda Kumar Road, Calcutta morefully described in the schedule hereinbelow and the same being the subject matter of the instant case, is hereinafter collectively referred to as “the suit Flat”. The suit Flat was also out of the allocation of the o.p. no.10 company.
It needs to be mentioned herein that the said premises no. 18A, Maharaja Nanda Kumar Road, Calcutta-29, was subsequently amalgamated with the adjacent 1A, Jadu Nath Sarkar Lane and renumbered as premises 1A, Maharaja Nanda Kumar Road, Calcutta-29, on which the said new project of o.p. no.10 came up and whereupon the suit Flat is situated.
Against the said fresh booking of the suit Flat, the complainant even tendered payment of a further sum of Rs.5,50,000/- only to o.p. no.10 in the period between 28.3.03 and October 2003. Thus out of the total consideration of Rs.16,50,000/- for the suit Flat, a sum of Rs.15 lakhs had already been paid by the complainant to o.p. no.10 company, by and within October 2003. The balance consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- had been agreed to be paid at the time of registration and execution of the Deed of Sale in respect of the suit Flat. O.p. no.10 had agreed to complete the said project by and within 30.4.04 but they completed the same as late as in June 2006.
On or about 27.6.06, on not hearing from o.p. no.10 for a long time, the complainant and his wife had visited the site and the suit Flat when to their astonishment they found 2 unknown ladies inspecting the suit Flat. The complainant then immediately went over to the office of (Sri) Devjoy Mitra, to enquire as to why there were strangers inspecting his suit Flat, when the said (Sri) Devjoy Mitra, actually tried warding off his fear and assured him that there was nothing to worry about and the suit Flat would be delivered to the complainant shortly. Even though the complainant was assured for the time being, he went to inspect the suit Flat again on 3.7.06, when to his utter surprise, he found some other strangers inspecting the suit Flat. He then again contacted the said (Sri) Devjoy Mitra, who this time categorically told the complainant on his face that he was getting a much higher price from others and would sell the suit Flat to some third party and not the complainant. The latter then had a heated argument with the said (Sri) Devjoy Mitra over the said illegal and unlawful act of o.p. no.10, but to no avail. The said (Sri) Devjoy Mitra kept declaring that it has been decided that o.p. no.10 company would sell the suit Flat to some third party and not the complainant and such decision could not be changed any further. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
O.p. nos.7 and 10 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. Matter has been heard ex parte against the other o.ps. 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.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that complainant has been able to prove his case as there is deficiency in rendering service on the part of the o.ps. and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed on contest with cost against o.p. nos.7 and 10 and ex parte with cost against the rest o.ps. O.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to register the sale deed of the flat including car parking space in favour of complainant upon payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- by the complainant to the o.p. no. 10 failing which the o.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to refund Rs. 15,00,000/- i.e. the amount deposited by the complainant inclusive all interest @10% from the date of deposit till the date of realization and compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @10/% p.a. shall accrue over the compensation and litigation cost till the date of realization.
