West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/103/2015

Dr. Ratan Lal Bhowmick, alias Ratan Lal Bhuniya. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr. Pradip Das, Proprietor of The Graphe. - Opp.Party(s)

T.K. Mohanti.

30 Jun 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , JUDGES’ COURT, ALIPORE KOLKATA-700 027

 

         C.C. CASE NO. _103_ OF ___2015__

 

DATE OF FILING : 24.2.2015                  DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: _30.6.2015__

 

Present                         Member(s)    :    Mrs. Sharmi Basu & Jinjir Bhattacharya

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT             :   Dr. Ratan Lal Bhowmick alias Ratan Lal Bhuniya of 6, M.G. Road, River Vision Apartment, P.O Shrirampur, P.S. _   District-Hooghly, W.B.

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                            : Mr. Pradip Das, Prop. Of The Graphs, 23/54, Gariahat Road, Golpark, Kol-29 P.S.-  Dist. South 24-Parganas.

________________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

 

Mrs. Sharmi Basu, Member

The instant case has been filed by the complainant under section  12 of the C.P Act, 1986 with allegation of deficiency in service against the O.Ps.

In a nutshell the case of the complainant is that being allured by an advertisement published by the O.P, the complainant entered into an agreement for sale with the O.P containing the terms and conditions of the sale on 7.10.2012 . The consideration of that flat was fixed as Rs.4,10,000/- . The complainant through installments paid Rs.,2,04,900/- but  the complainant whenever visited the office of the O.P for paying installments , he was always assured that the work was in progress and possession would be handed over by December, 2013. But on 1.12.2013 the complainant visited the site in question and found there was no development of the area and there was no sign of construction and he came to know that since 2010 onwards the project was abandoned by the O.P. He sent one legal notice dated 7.1.2014 with request to deliver the possession of the flat and as a reply on 11.2.2014 the O.P admitted about the payment of Rs.2,04,900/- by the complainant to the O.P  and for the first time disclosed that the project in question  is notified by East Kolkata Development Weight Land Authority and as per Government direction the work is stopped. Therefore, the complainant had no other alternative but to file the instant complaint petition with prayers as mentioned in the petition of complaint.

Even after valid service of summon the O.P has not appeared before this Forum and the case was proceeded exparte against the O.P and all the documents filed by the complainant are being unchallenged piece of testimony and considered as true by this Forum.

 

After scrutinizing four corners of the case following points are in limelight :

1.             Whether the complainant is a Consumer or not.
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps or not.
3. Whether the complainant is eligible to get relief as prayed for partly or fully.

                                                            Decision with reasons

Point no.1:-   In the instant case the complainant paid to the O.P(developer) Rs.2,04,900/- out of total consideration of Rs.4,10,000/- for purchasing the suit flat. Therefore, the complainant is a ‘consumer’ and the O.P is ‘service provider’ under section 2(1)(d)(ii) and 2(1)(o) of the C.P Act, 1986 and the case is adjudicable by this Forum.

Thus the point no.1 is discussed and the same is in favour of the complainant.

Point nos. 2 and 3 :  It appears from the record that the O.P is illegally withholding the sum of Rs.2,04,900/- without completing the construction as agreed upon by executing the agreement for sale dated 07.10.2002. The O.p vide circular dated 15.12.2007 intimated the complainant to pay Rs.6500/- towards development cost with monthly installment because development work was already completed, when the complainant visited the project  site on 1.12.2013, he found there was no construction work or development except some concrete pillars. The O.P has made deliberate wrong statement in the circular dated 15.12.2007.

The O.P with malafide intention did not disclose that the entire land of the project was notified by the Govt. The complainant for the first time came to know about vesting of land from the reply letter dated 11.02.2014. If the complainant had knowledge about vesting then he would not have paid the installments to the O.P.

It is also revealed from the record that O.P is unable to hand over possession and execute and register the deed of conveyance even after entering into the Agreement for sale dated 7.10.2012 and receiving Rs.2,04,900/- out of total consideration of the flat in question from the complainant.

Henceforth, we have no hesitation to hold that the O.P has committed deficiency in rendering services to the complainant/consumer and duty bound to refund Rs.2,04,900/- to the complainant.

It is also beyond doubt that due to deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the O.P complainant has to suffer immense mental agony, harassment and financial loss and complainant is eligible to be aptly compensated by the O.P .

Thus the point nos. 2 and 3 are discussed and both are in favour of the complainant and the complainant’s case succeeds.

Hence,

                                                            Ordered

That the case is allowed exparte with cost.

The O.P is directed to refund Rs.2,04,900/- and to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and financial loss due to deficiency in service and negligence of the O.P and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant within one month from this date, failing which, Rs.50/- per diem is to be paid by the O.P from the date of expiry of 30 days till realization .

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the parties free of cost.

 

Member                                                           Member                                              

Dictated and corrected by me

 

                        Member

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

       

The judgement in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

Ordered

That the case is allowed exparte with cost.

The O.P is directed to refund Rs.2,04,900/- and to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and financial loss due to deficiency in service and negligence of the O.P and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant within one month from this date, failing which, Rs.50/- per diem is to be paid by the O.P from the date of expiry of 30 days till realization .

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the parties free of cost.

 

Member                                                           Member