DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C. C. CASE NO. 216/2021
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
16.05.2017 06.06.2017 21.11.2022
Complainant/s:- | - SMT. MOUSUMI MAITI, W/o Sri Sandip Maiti.
- SRI SANDIP MAITI, S/o Late Chittaranjan Maiti, both are residing at B-28/201, Peerless Nagar, Panihati, Post Office – Panihati, Police Station – Khardha, Kolkata – 700114, West Bengal
= Vs.= |
Opposite Party/s:- | - M/S DHARITRI INFRAVENTURE PVT. LTD., a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered Office at DN-51, Marline Infinite, 6th Floor, Suite No. 606, Sector – V, Salt Lake City, Post Office – Bidhna Nagar Sech Bhawan, Police Station – East Bidhannagar, Kolkata – 700091.
- SRI VIKI SINGH, S/o late Ranjit Singh, Director of M/s Dharitri Infraventure Pvt. Ltd., a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered Office at DN-51, Marline Infinite, 6th Floor, Suite No. 606, Sector – V, Salt Lake City, Post Office – Bidhna Nagar Sech Bhawan, Police Station – East Bidhannagar, Kolkata – 700091.
|
P R E S E N T :- Smt. Monisha Shaw …………………. Member.
:- Sri Abhijit Basu……………………….Member
JUDGMENT / FINAL ORDER
The Complainant filed a complaint U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as amended up to date alleging for deficiency of service and for unfair trade practice against O.Ps.
In brief the complaint is:-
The O.P. No. 1 is a Private Ltd. company being represented by O.P. No. 2 as on of its director launched a housing complex project in the name and style of “Royal Enclave” upon several number of plots of land under Mouza Hudarait near Sapoorji Bus-stop within Rajarhat Police station. The O.P. purchased published brochure and made advertisement for said having complex project, they would construct multi-storied building consisting of several flats and would sell the same to the intending purchasers against valuable consideration. The Complainant applied for one flat on or about 5/08/2018 and at the time of application paid Rs. 50,000/- by cheque in favour of O.P. No. 1. Thereafter, Complainant paid Rs. 3,14,358/- on or about 18/08/2018 for booking a flat in project “Royal Enclave”. On 17/04/2019 the O.P. No. 1 issued a letter whereby one flat measuring about 1027 sq.ft. of super built up area in tower – 18, 3rd floor, being flat no. A under the project “Royal Enclave” was allotted in the name of Complainant against total consideration of Rs. 32,75,600/-. After receipt of said letter the Complainant made payment for a sum of Rs. 3,46,219/- on or about 22/04/2019. On several occasions the Complainants requested the O.P. to supply copy of sanctioned plan, title deed, parcha, copy of khazna paid receipt and other documents for searching the plot of land but O.P. failed to supply the same. Suddenly the Complainant No. 2 Sandip Maiti only earning member became jobless as such the Complainant requested to refund the entire money paid by them. Several e-mails were exchanged by and between the parties. The O.Ps admitted to make refund of entire money against cancellation of the booking of the flat by Complainants subject to deduction of service tax GST. Prior to that the Opposite Parties committed to make refund of entire money subject to aforesaid deduction in 8 installments by an email dated 17/02/2020 but the O.Ps did not make any refund. Hence, the Complainant filed this complaint.
Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./
: : 2 : :
C. C. CASE NO. 216/2021
The notice were served upon the O.Ps through speed post and notice were served properly but the O.Ps did not appeared this case.
Considering the case record and evidence it is found that the Complainant proved his case and Complainant is a Consumer of O.P. Hence, this case is under the provision of Consumer Protection Act.
Prayer of the Complainants
- To direct the Opposite Parties to refund Rs. 7,10,649/- @ 12% interest per annum.
- To direct the Opposite Parties to pay interest @ 18% as claimed in prayer from September.
- To direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation towards damages and mental trauma.
- To direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- towards litigation cost.
- Any other relief or reliefs as this Learned Forum may deemed fit and proper.
Issues were framed for the purpose of decision:-
- Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief / reliefs in this case or not?
Decisions with Reasons:-
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case all the points are interlinked with each other and as such all the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of brevity and convenience.
On perused the material record it is found that the Complainant paid total Rs. 7,10,649/- for purchase a flat and they demanded land’s deed, parcha etc. for searching but did not supplied by the O.P. and due to personal reason Complainant wants to refund the deposited money as Complainant No. 2 became unemployed. The O.Ps agreed to refund but not made any refund to the Complainant since long. Considering the facts and circumstances and considerate submission of the Advocate of Complainants it is found that the Complainant’s points and prayer is positive. As such we are of the view that the Complainant is entitled to get relief / or reliefs as reflected in ordering portion.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, for ends of justice
It is ordered,
That the case being C.C. No. 216/2021 be and the same is allowed ex-parte as O.Ps are not appeared.
The Complainants Mousumi Maiti and Sandip Maiti do get a decree that it is directed to the Opposite Parties to refund Rs. 7,10,649/- (Rs. Seven lac ten thousand six hundred forty nine) only with 6% interest from the date of last date of payment till recovery and Rs. 5,000/- for litigation cost, mental agony within two months. Failing which the Complainant has liberty to take legal steps for execution according to law.
Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per the CPR, 2005.
Dictated and Corrected by me
Member
Member Member
