Dt. of filing- 13/10/2017

Dt. of Judgement- 28/02/2019

Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President.

          This Consumer Complaint  is filed by the  complainant namely Anuj Kumar Pandey under Section 12  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party namely Shri Dipankar  Naskar alleging deficiency in rendering services  on his part.

 Complainant’s case in short is that OP is engaged in selling residential Plots and involved in development Township Projects. Complainant was contacted by the Agent of the OP  namely (1) Mr. Prasanth Bhunia and on issuing  the leaflets and forms of  Township Project, complainant booked one plot of land being  numbered B-42  on 7^th May , 2015 and paid  Rs. 7,00,000/- by a cheque  of  ICICI Bank  dated 12.05.2015. Complainant    had taken a loan of Rs.7,00,000/-  @ interest  of 14.05%.  Complainant was assured at the time of booking that the plot will be handed over on April, 2018. But no development work was done by the OP. Repeated telephonic calls were made by the complainant but of no use. Ultimately, in January, 2017, complainant met with OP and asked about the Project who assured that  sooner  the Project  will be started. But no development work was started in the Project. Thereafter, complainant was offered a plot of land in another Project namely “Golden Point”, Thakurpukur area. Complainant  did not agree  to switch over  to a new Project  and thus asked for  refund  of booking amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- with interest  @18%.But the amount was not  refunded and so ultimately the present complaint  has been filed praying for directing the  OP to pay booking amount of Rs. 7,00,000/-, Rs. 2,70,000/- along with  18% interest, to pay sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards the physical strain and  mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards the litigation cost.

          Complainant has annexed with complaint petition, copy of agreement for sale dated 05.03.2015 entered into between the parties, money receipt acknowledging payment of Rs. 7,00,000/- by way of cheque by the complainant and application for booking.

          The case is contested by the OP by filing W.V. denying the allegations made in the complaint petition stating inter alia due to some  unforeseen  legal complications in the said project work, it got  delayed and that  was informed to the complainant. OP offered the complainant to switch over to a  land in another project named “Golden Point” in alternative but the same was refused. OP entangled with legal hassles which was beyond the control of OP. There was no wilful default on the part of the OP and thus OP has prayed for dismissal of the case.

          During the course of the evidence, both the parties adduced evidence by way of filing affidavit in chief followed by filing questionnaire and reply thereto. Ultimately, argument has been advanced.

          So the following points required determination:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in rendering service on the part of the OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for ?

Decision with reasons

          Point Nos. 1 & 2  :

                Both the points are taken up together for comprehensive discussions. Complainant has filed  copy of the agreement  entered into between the parties wherefrom  it appears  that he agreed to purchase a  plot of land being Numbered B-42  measuring  total 3 cottahs  in the project  called “Pailan New Town “ on a total consideration   money of Rs.  7,00,000/-. It also appears from the agreement that the said plot was to be developed and handed over within 36 months  and in failure complainant/purchaser could cancel  and the  Vendor/OP  agreed   to repay  the entire amount along with interest @18% p.a. from the date of the agreement .

          According to the complainant he has already paid  the entire amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- but no development work has been started by the OP towards the  said project. He has not been  handedover the plot of land as agreed. On perusal of the  W.V. filed by the OP,  it appears that  he has not  disputed the payment of Rs. 7,00,000/- by the complainant. It is also not disputed  that he had booked the plot of land being  numbered B-42 in the Pailan New Project. The only contention  which has been  raised by the OP is that due to some  legal  complications they could not start the  development in the  project. So apparently, the claim of the complainant that no development work  has been started  in the said project  is admitted by the OP.  It is also contended by the OP that they offered the complainant  to a plot of land  in another project namely “Golden Point”  but the complainant refused.  OP cannot force or compel the complainant to accept  plot of land in any other project  if the agreement  was entered  between the parties  for a plot of land in the project  called  “Pailan New  Town”. It is also apparent  that the development  work in the said project  in still  not done. If that be so,  there remains no doubt that there has been  deficiency in  providing  services  on the part of the OP and thus  the  complainant is entitled to refund  of Rs. 7,00,000/-  along with  interest as agreed @18% p.a. However,  as interest is allowed it will not be justified  to allow the compensation as prayed.

          These points are thus answered accordingly.

Hence,

                                 Ordered

          CC/569/2017 is allowed on contest. OP is directed to refund  Rs. 7,00,000/-  to the complainant along with interest  @18% p.a. from the date of agreement till this date  within two months from the date of this order. OP   is also directed to pay litigation cost of   Rs. 5,000/- as prayed within the  aforesaid period  of two months in default  the entire  sum shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. till its realisation.