DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144

      C.C. CASE NO. _159_ OF ___2010

DATE OF FILING : 18.6.2010                     DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  _5.6.2018_

Present                        :   President       :   Ananta Kumar Kapri

                                        Member(s)    :    Subrata Sarker 

COMPLAINANT        :    Mr. Pradip Saha, son of late Paresh Chandra Saha , Seabird Apts. Flat no.24, 12^th floor, 114B, J Road, Bandstand, Bandra, West Mumbai-400 050.

•  VERSUS  -

O.P/O.Ps                            : Nirala Properties Private Limited at Commerce House, 7^th floor, Room no.8D and 8E, at 2A, Ganesh Chandra Avenue , Kolkata – 13, represented by its Managing Directors- Dinabandhu Chatterjee

_______________________________________________________________________

                                                            J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

Sri Ananta Kumar  Kapri, President

     The nub of the facts leading to the filing of the instant complaint by the complainant is that the complainant entered into an agreement with the O.P and thereby agreed to purchase five cattahs of developed land @18000/- per cattah with development cost Rs.10,000/- per cattah from the O.P, a Development Company. Rs.10,105/- was paid by the complainant on 23.5.1994 as the booking money but O.P-1 failed to make development of the land within the prescribed time. He demanded Rs.50,000/- per cattah by his letter dated 9.8.2000. The complainant has now prayed for registration of the land , delivery of possession of the same on payment of consideration money , or alternatively to refund of the consideration price paid to the O.P with interest. Hence, this case.

     The O.P has been contesting the case by filing written statement and additional written statement, wherein it is contended by him that the case is barred by limitation and that the complainant is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for. The positive case as made out in the additional written statement is that he received Rs.10,105/- on 23.5.1994 from the complainant as booking money. Thereafter he incurred a huge cost to clear the road development and, therefore, the price of the land was increased and the increase of the price was made known to the complainant by letter dated 9.8.2000. But the complainant was not ready to purchase the land at increased price and, therefore, he cancelled the booking, vide complainant’s lawyer’s letter dated 19.11.2001. Now, the complainant is not entitled to registration of the land in his favour or to refund of the price paid by him and that the complaint should be dismissed in limini with cost.

     Upon the averments of the parties following points are formulated for consideration.

POINT FOR DETERMINATION

1. Is the O.P guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
2. Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?

EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES

Both the parties have led their Evidences on affidavit which are kept in the record for consideration. Questionnaires, replies , BNAs filed by the parties are also kept in the record for consideration.

DECISION WITH REASONS

Point no.1 & 2 :-

Already heard the submissions of Ld. Lawyers appearing for the parties. Perused the complaint, written version of statement filed by the O.P and the evidences adduced by the parties. Considered all these.

It is admitted fact that the complainant paid Rs.10,105/- to the O.P on 23.5.1994 as booking money for purchasing developed land from the O.P who is a developer. The booking money is part of consideration money. The O.P promised to develop the land and to complete such development within three years of the date of receipt of the booking money. But he could not do so. He was prevented by the concomitant circumstances from developing the case land. Vast agitation of the public made him to remain away from developing the land. That apart, the Land & Land Reforms Office of the Government also stood in the way of development of the land and, therefore, the O.P failed to effect the needed development on the case land. Still now, the land has not been developed and, therefore, the complainant has prayed for refund of the money paid to the O.P by him along with interest . He has also prayed for compensation for not effecting the agreement by the O.P. In our considered opinion and having regard to the circumstances faced by the O.P, we are of the opinion that it is better to pass an order, directing the O.P to refund the money received by him from the complainant. Of course,the O.P will have to pay interest upon that money from the date of receipt till the date of full realization. But no compensation is awarded against the O.P inasmuch as the O.P developer was forced by the circumstances, which was not under his control, to stop the development work of the land which he agreed to sell to the complainant.

Point nos. 1 and 2 are thus disposed of accordingly.

In the result, the case succeeds.

Hence,

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

The O.Ps are directed to make payment of Rs.10,105/- to the complainant with interest @12% p.a from the date of receipt of the said money till the date of realization thereof, within a month of this order , failing which the complainant will be at liberty to recover the said amount by execution of this award through the machinery of this Forum.

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

                                                                                                                   President

I / We agree

                               Member                                                    Member                                                                      

Dictated and corrected by me

                        President