DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,

 KOLKATA-700 0144

      C.C. CASE NO. __96_ _ OF ___2017

DATE OF FILING :_20.07.2017         DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  19.11.2018

Present                 :   President       :   Ananta Kumar Kapri

                                 Member(s)    :    Subrata Sarker 

COMPLAINANT   :            1. Mrs. Shyamali Bhattacharya, wife of Mr. Joydeep Bhattacharya.

                                  2. Mr. Joydeep Bhattacharya, son of late Rash Mohan  Bhattacharya , both of 31, Gariahat Road, Block-II, Flat no.7, P.S Lake, Kolkata – 29.

•  VERSUS  -

O.P/O.Ps                    : Lord Realty Pvt. Ltd. represented by Md. Anwar Azim, Chairman & Managing Director, at 71/9, Topsia Road (South), Kolkata – 46 and its previous registered office at 7B, Ahirpukur Road, 3^rd Floor, Kolkata – 19, corporate office at 46, Lower Range, Kolkata – 19.

_______________________________________________________________________

                                                J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

Sri Ananta Kumar  Kapri, President

                The dream project “Lord City Sonarpur Project” of the O.P did not ever take off ; but the O.P/developer swindled a lot of money from the complainants, having allured him with the commitment of providing a developed land fitted with all amenities of modern lie. When the dream project of the O.P failed to see the light of the day, the complainants demanded refund of the money paid to the O.P . But the O.P did not pay the money and this refusal to pay the money to the complainants by the O.P has galvanized the complainants to file the instant case under section 12 , C.P Act, 1986.

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

             O.P i.e the developer agreed to sell and develope two cattah of land in his dream project as succinctly described in schedule to the complaint for a total consideration price of Rs. 4 lac. The complainants paid Rs.2,76,667/- in all to the O.P. The project work was not commenced; possession was not also delivered to the complainants by the O.P within 12 months of allotment letter dated 29.11.2013. Therefore, the complainants pray for refund of the consideration price paid by him and also for compensation etc. Hence, this case.

                Admitting the booking of the plot and payment of the consideration price, the O.P has filed the written statement ,wherein it is stated that the construction of the project work was delayed due to implementation of demonetization policy and GST by the Government of India. Project work of plots will be completed within one year of filing written statement and that he would execute sale agreement within 30 days of filing written statement if such direction is issued to him by the Court. There is no deficiency in service , as goes the version of the O.P, on the part of the O.P and, therefore, the case should be dismissed in limini.

                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 complainants?
2. Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?

EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES

                 The petition of complaint is treated as evidence of the complainants vide their petition dated 23.11.2017. No evidence has been led by the O.P and, therefore, the case is heard exparte against him.

DECISION WITH REASONS

Point no.1 & 2 :

             In the instant case, the version of the complainants has not been contradicted by the O.P, rather, the allotment of the land and the receipt of the consideration money of Rs.2,76,667/- have been admitted by the O.P. It is noted in the evidence of the complainants that the O.P gave him an allotment letter dated 29.11.2013 and thereby he promised to deliver the possession of the developed plot of land within 12 months of the said letter. But such possession has not been delivered to the complainant by the O.P even much  after expiry of the said period. The instant complaint is filed in the year 2017 i.e about four years after the issue of the aforesaid allotment letter dated 29.11.2013 and these facts have remained unchallenged and not contradicted by the O.P. So, relying upon all these facts we feel no difficulty to hold that it has not been possible for the O.P to complete his dream project within the prescribed time. Inability to complete the project within the prescribed time is undoubtedly a clear instance of deficiency in service. We cannot make the complainant wait for indefinite period for getting the possession  of the land , the O.P promised to deliver to the complainant.

            Regards being had to all these, we are of the opinion that the complainants are entitled to get refund of the consideration price paid by him to the O.P with compensation which will be paid by way of interest to the complainants.

              In the result, the case succeeds .

               Hence,

ORDERED

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

             The O.P is directed to refund Rs.2,76,667/- to the complainant with simple interest @12% p.a from the date of respective payment to the date of full realization of the said amount within a month of this order, failing which, the complainants are at liberty to recover the decreetal amount along with cost by execution of this award through the instrumentality of the Forum.

             No separate order as to compensation is passed herein in views of the high rate of interest awarded to the complainant.

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

                                                                                                                   President

I / We agree

                                                                    Member

Dictated and corrected by me

                           President