Order No.

Dt.15.4.2016

            This is a complaint made by one Sri Sudip Banerjee against M/S M.S. Construction praying for working construction by the opposite party and to take necessary step to legally build and handing the flat over the lawfull and peaceful the possession of Flat bearing No.2B on the South East side of the 2^nd floor, measuring super built up area of 600 sq.ft. together with undivided proportionate share in the land and also to refund the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with an  interest of 15% p.a., damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant entered into an agreement on 26.6.2012 with the opposite party for purchasing a flat bearing Flat No.2B on the South East side of the 2^nd floor measuring super built up area of 600 sq.ft. As per agreement dated 26.6.2012 Complainant paid Rs.4,00,000/- to the opposite party. Time is the essence of the contract. As per the contract the OP was to complete the flat within six months from the date of the agreement which was to be extended up to four months.

            Complainant enquired about the handing-over the flat to him. Suddenly Complainant found a notice affixed on the premises wherein it was mentioned that the building was being constructed violating the KMC rules. So, Complainant could understand that opposite party has played tactics with him. Thereafter the Complainant went to the Consumers Affairs Department where a tri-partite meeting was held and he was advised to file complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Opposite party did not file written version to contest the case and so the case was heard ex-parte.

Decisions with reasons

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief to substantiate the allegation mentioned in the complaint and also filed certain documents. Complainant also filed written argument.

            On perusal of annexure A it appears that there was an agreement between the Complainant and opposite party as mentioned in the complaint. Further, it appears that Complainant paid Rs.4,00,000/- to the opposite party. It also appears that there was affixed a notice on the premises as stated by the Complainant after which Complainant became desperate and approached the Consumer Affairs Department.

            In the affidavit-in-chief Complainant has asserted the facts mentioned in the complaint in written argument. He has mentioned the facts stated in the complaint petition. Thereafter on perusal of affidavit-in-chief and written argument it appears that Complainant is entitled to relief as sought for in the complaint. However, as the premises got disputed it has become impossible to complete the flat and that the order for handing-over of the flat in favour of the Complainant cannot be made and so refund of Rs.4,00,000/- with 15% interest has been prayed. But, considering the market, in our view, if interest @ 10% is allowed it would be sufficient. Further-more if the compensation and litigation cost are allowed as claimed it would be justiciable.

Hence

O R D E R E D

            OP is directed to pay Rs.4,00,000/- with interest of 10%p.a. from the date of filing of this application till realization within three months of this order. Further, OP is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost within the same period in default this  amount will also carry  10% interest till realization.

            Hence, CC/57/2015 is allowed ex-parte.