West Bengal

Kolkata-I(North)

CC/12/167

Mrs. Gladys Anthony - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager/Authorised Person, M/s. Desire Agro Resorts Development Pvt. Ltd. and 2 others - Opp.Party(s)

31 Jul 2017

ORDER

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata - I (North)
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
Web-site - confonet.nic.in
 
Complaint Case No. CC/12/167
 
1. Mrs. Gladys Anthony
Gitanjali School, Chikkaballapur, Karnataka-562101.
Karnataka
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Manager/Authorised Person, M/s. Desire Agro Resorts Development Pvt. Ltd. and 2 others
P-525, Hamanta Mokhopadhyay Sarani, Kolkata-700029.
Kolkata
WB
2. Director / Authorised Officer, M/s. Desire Agro Resorts Development Pvt. Ltd.
P-525, Raja Basanta Roy Road, 1st Floor, P.S. Lake, Kolkata-700029.
3. Manager / Authorised Officer, Shree Ganapati Properties
7/1A, Grant Lane, 3rd Floor, Room No. 310, Kolkata-700012.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Sambhunath Chatterjee PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Sk. Abul Answar MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 31 Jul 2017
Final Order / Judgement

Order No.  34  dt.  31/07/2017

            The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant underwent an agreement with M/s Desire Agro Resorts Development (P) Ltd, P-525, Hemanta Mukhapadhyay Sarani , Kolkata-700 029 for purchasing a plot of land with it’s development measuring 1440 Sq. Ft., situated at Mouza-Kharaberia, Police Station-Bishnupur, 24 Parganas (South) against a total consideration of Rs.3,12,200/-. Complainant paid Rs.52,000/- to the o.p. against receipt  dated 02/01/2009. The rest of the consideration was scheduled to be paid by the complainant in 36 installments @ Rs.5778/-only in each. In the agreement it was assured that the o.p. would hand over the plot of land after its development for the purpose of its use.  After maiden payment of  Rs.52,000/- complainant paid 6 installments @ Rs.5778/- and thereafter, complainant booked another plot having same area by payment of Rs 52,000/- and thereafter paid instalments @ Rs 11556/- for 3 installments. Thereby complainant succeeded to pay Rs.1,79,114/- ultimately. In the mean time, Sree Ganapati Properties(op-3) stopped collecting the installments.

Then complainant being aggrieved lodge this complaint seeking relief by praying registration of the two plots by paying balance amount with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment & mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

            O.p. contested this case by submitting w/v. Ld. Lawyer of the o.p. has argued that the complaint is harrassive, frivolous, speculative and are of no consequences and as such the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be rejected in limini.

            The Diamon Park project of the opposite parties has been abandoned due to imposition of restriction stipulated by the government and the local authorities and also for some legal impediment and as such not providing of the plot to the complainant by the opposite parties was beyond the control and was due to unavoidable circumstances for which there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant and not liable to pay any compensation, cost  etc. to the complainant and as such the prayer for4 compensation is liable to be rejected with exemplary cost.

            On the basis of the pleading of the parties the following points are to be decided.

  1. Whether there was any deficiency in service/UTP on the part of the o.p?
  2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?

Decision with reason

All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance

of repetition of facts.

Ld lawyer of the complainant argued that the complainant surrendered the documents of the plot and asked for refund of money to the o.ps but till the month of September,2012 the o.ps failed and neglected to refund the money to the complainant for which the complainant again by letter dated 14.09.2012 further reminded to refund the deposited money of the complainant but till date no effective steps has been taken by the o.ps.

O.p. failed to provide the land in terms and condition of the agreement Therefore there is a deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. otherwise it would be term as UTP for which o.p. is liable to pay compensation and lost also.

Considering the submission of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that complainant entered into an agreement with o.p.

for purchasing a plot with its development and the complainant paid Rs.1,79,114/-. Since the o.p.  discontinued the project by discontinuing collection of installments from the complainants, it is therefore, considered that there was Unfair Trade Practices on the  part of the ops. And the complainant will be entitled to get relief . Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.

Hence, ordered.

That the case no.167/2012 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. O.p. is directed to pay Rs.1,79,114/-to the complainant with compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- only. O.p.is also directed to pay the aforesaid amount within 30 days from the date 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. 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sambhunath Chatterjee]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sk. Abul Answar]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.