DATE OF FILING : 19-02-2013.
DATE OF S/R : 18-03-2013.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 28-06-2013.
Dr. Sudhansu Sekhar Pal,
son of late Satish Chandra Pal,
residing at House no. 53, Queens Land Park,
Delhi Roorke Bypass, near Jatauli Railway Crossing,
P.O. Jatauli, Meerut,
PIN – 250 001.------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd.
having its registered office
at 55 & 55/1, Chowringhee Road,
Chowringhee Court ( 4th floor ),
Kolkata – 700 071.
2. Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd.,
having its office at Salap Junction,
Howrah Amta Road, Bombay Road Crossing,
NH-6, Bankra, Howrah – 711 403,
West Bengal.-------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986
wherein the complainant has prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to refund the booking money amounting to Rs. 1 lakh and compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs together with litigation costs as the O.P. in spite of the payment of Rs. 1 lakh as advance money for booking of a flat as per advertisement thrown by the O.Ps. did not supply the relevant documents on repeated requests. Hence the case.
2. The o.ps. in their written version contended interalia that the case be dismissed
with costs as the agreement already expired.
3. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
4. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. Admittedly the
complainant being attracted by the advertisement given by the O.P. company applied for the apartment in the multi storied building to be constructed at Salap Junction, Howrah – Amta Road and Bombay Road Crossing. Admittedly the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 1 lakh as booking fees through demand draft of S.B.I., Meerut Branch, on 21-04-2010. Accordingly a residential apartment was provisionally allotted in application no. KWB 0073 dated 24-04-2010. On 05-05-2010 the O.Ps. sent a demand letter asking him to pay further sum of Rs. 1,55,812/- without making over the documents regarding the project. Turning a deaf ear to the requests of the complainant for supply of the relevant documents and papers, the O.Ps. started demanding the outstanding amount of Rs. 2,56,812/- and again Rs. 7,33,427/- as dues upto 29-02-2012. All the requests of the complainant for supply of the documents were not complied with.
5. The demand of the complainant for supply of the relevant papers together with the
sanction letter and the sanction plan was justified as because the consumer cannot be left in the dark with respect to ongoing project. It appears from the conduct of the O.Ps. that money and money was the only criteria for them. They had least regard for supplying the relevant documents to the complainant. The allegation on the part of the O.Ps. that the agreement already expired is not tenable from the point of view of law. If the complainant is not handed over with the proper legal papers, how the complainant could repose faith and confidence on the O.Ps. organization.
6. We are, therefore, of the view that this is fit case where the deficiency in service
and gross unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps. has been established. The complainant is, therefore, entitled to the relief as prayed for. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 44 of 2013 ( HDF 44 of 2013 ) be and the same is allowed on contest with costs against the O.Ps.
The O.Ps. be directed to refund the sum of Rs. 1 lakh together with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of 24-04-2010 till full satisfaction within 30 days from the date of this order.
The o.ps. be further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental pain and prolonged harassment.
The complainant is further entitled to a litigation costs of Rs. 5,000/-.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( T.K. Bhattacharya ) ( T.K. Bhattacharya )
President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.
( Jhumki Saha ) ( P. K. Chatterjee )
Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.
