DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
North 24 Pgs., BARASAT
C.C. No./108/2021
Date of Filing Date of Admission Date of Disposal
12.04.2021 26.04.2021 26.04.2024
Complainant/s:- | 1.Dr. Bhaskar Mukhopadhyay, S/o. Sri Pulak Mukherjee, K-203, Fortune City, 155, Old Jessore Road, Madhyamgram, P.O. and P.S. Madhyamgram, Kolkata-700132. 2. Sweta Mukhopadhyay, W/o. Dr. Bhaskar Mukhopadhyay, Residing at K-203, Fortune City, 155 Old Jessore Road, Madhyamgram, P.O. and P.S. Madhyamgram, Kolkata-700132. -Vs- |
Opposite Party/s:- | 1.M/s. Evanie Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Its Regd. Office at 86, Golaghata, 1st floor, Jamuna Apartment, VIP Road, Behind Venkatesh Banquet, Kolkata700048 and also its office at 594/1, Dakshindari Road, Bima Abasan, Flat No.E2/1, 1st Floor, P.O. Sreebhumi, P.S. Lake Town, Kolkata700048. 2. Sri Supriyo Kumar Patra, S/o, Sri Asis Kumar Patra, Director , M/s. Evanie Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, its regd. office at 86, Golaghata, 1st Floor, Jamuna Apartment , VIP Road, behind Venkatesh Banquet, Kolkata-70048, having its office at 594/1, Dakshindari Road, ‘Bima Abasan’ Flat No.E2/1,1st Floor, P.O. Sreebhumi, P.S. Lake Town, Kolkata-700048. |
P R E S E N T :- Sri. Daman Prosad Biswas……….President.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu…………………. Member.
JUDGMENT /FINAL ORDER
Complainant above named filed this complaint under Section 35 of the C.P. Act, 2019 against the aforesaid opposite parties praying for refund of Rs. 28,80,000/- interest at the rate 24% p.a. , compensation amounting to Rs, 5,00,000/- , cost of the case amounting to
Rs.75,000/- and other reliefs.
He alleged that O.P. No.1 is a developer company, O.P. No.4 is the owner of the land. Complainants booked a bunglow and gave on advance of Rs. 4,80,000/-. Out of the total consideration amount complainant paid Rs. 28,80,000/- in favour of O.P. No.1. Subsequently the complainant came to learn that O.Ps failed to obtain any registration from the concerned authority under ‘WBHIRA’. He came to learn that Concerned Gram Panchayat sanctioned the plan on 13.04.2018 in respect of G+4 storied building . Complainants booked a two storied standalone house of 1800 sq. ft. Finding no other alternative complainant No. 2 submitted a letter on 11.09.19 which was received by the O.Ps and by the said letter complainant asked them to refund the aforesaid amount within a month. Since the project was found illegal and for that reason complainant asked the OPs to refund the aforesaid amount. Hence the complainant filed this case.
On perusal of record O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 appeared in this record and filed W.V and denied the entire allegation made in the petition of complaint and further contended that allegations are totally false and the. case is liable to be dismissed.
Decision with Reasons
We have carefully considered the affidavit in chief filed by the complainant. We find that they have corroborated their allegation.
Contd/-
C.C. No./108/2021
:: 2 ::
On perusal of copy of agreement which was verified at the time of hearing argument we find that complainants have booked a Banglow with the consideration of Rs. 70,00,000/-. out of the said amount complainant paid Rs. 4,59,330/- at the time of aforesaid agreement and subsequently he paid Rs. 2,00,000 on 04.09.2017, Rs.2,00,000/-on 02.02.2017, Rs. 3,00,000/- on 28.05.2018, Rs.. 2,00,000/- on 19.06.2018, Rs. 2,00,000/- on 20.07.2018, on Rs. 3,00,000/- on 24.07.2018 and Rs. 4,00,000/- on 13.05.2018.
He also paid Rs. 3,30,000/- on 01.02.2017 and Rs. 1,50,000on 18.01.2017.
From the aforesaid discussion it is clear before us that complainants paid Rs. 28,80,000/- in favour of the O.Ps. It is the further allegation of the complainants that aforesaid project of the O.Ps did not get registration of WBHIRA and for that reason aforesaid project work not yet been started. In this situation complainants requested for refund of the aforesaid amount but O.Ps did not refund the same. O.Ps failed to assign any proper reason as to why they not yet refund the aforesaid amount. The aforesaid conduct of the O.Ps are amounts to deficiency in service.
On perusal of record we find that complainants are the consumers and the O.Ps are service providers.
Having regard to the aforesaid discussion it is clear before us that complainants have able to established their grievance by sufficient documents and they are entitled to reliefs as per their prayer.
In the result the present case succeeds.
Hence,
it is
Ordered
that the present case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P with cost of Rs. 5,000/-to be paid by the O.Ps in favour of the complainants.
O.Ps are directed to refund Rs. 28,80,000/- ( Rs. Twenty Eight Lakh Eighty Thousand) in favour of the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of receipt of the amount to till date of refund within 45 days from this day failing which the complainants shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
O.Ps are further directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-in faour of the complainant positively within 45 days from this day failing which complainants shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.
Dictated and Corrected by me
President
Member President
