View 8273 Cases Against Construction
Nanda Mukherjee filed a consumer case on 24 Jul 2023 against M/s Rubi Construction in the Bankura Consumer Court. The case no is CC/14/2017 and the judgment uploaded on 25 Jul 2023.
IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANKURA
Consumer Complaint No. 14/2017
Date of Filing: 17.02.2017
Before:
1. Samiran Dutta Ld. President.
2. Rina Mukherjee Ld. Member.
3. Siddhartha Sankar Bhui Ld. Member.
For the Complainant: Ld. Advocate Jayanta Kr. Mukhopadhyay
For the O.P. : Ld. Advocate Samir Banerjee
Complainant
Nanda Mukherjee, W/o Late Mohini Mohan Mukherjee, at Kuchkuchia Road, Bankura
Opposite Party
1.M/s Rubi Construction, Idga Mahalla, Bankura (Principal O.P.) &
2.Nandagopal Sengupta 3. Nabin Gopal Sengupta 4. Prasanta Kr. Sengupta 5.Saradindu Sengupta 6.Smt. Minati Sen (Sengupta) 7. Smt. Moloya Chowdhury (Sengupta) 8.Smt. Seema Sarkar (Sengupta) (Proforma O.P.s)
FINAL ORDER / JUDGEMENT
Order No.42
Dated:24-07-2023
Complainant files hazira through advocate.
No step is taken by the O.P.s
The case is fixed for argument. After hearing arguments from the Complainant the Commission proceeds to dispose of the case as hereunder: -
The Complainant’s case is that he entered into an agreement for sale with O.P.1 for purchase of a Residential flat as described in Schedule-A to the Complaint for Rs.10,00,000/- on 09/09/2015 and he paid in all Rs.8,00,000/- on different dates viz Rs.2.5 Lakh by Draft under Money Receipt dated:09/09/2015, Rs.2.5 Lakh by Draft under Money Receipt dated: 09/11/2015, Rs.1 Lakh by Cheque under Money Reciept dated: 08/01/2016, Rs.1 Lakh by Cheque under Money Reciept dated: 12/02/2016 and lastly Rs.1 Lakh by Cheque under Money Reciept dated: 28/06/2016. The O.P. could not completed the construction of the flat and other ancillary works according to the terms and conditions of the agreement. On demand the O.P. refused to return the said consideration money of Rs.8 Lakh. Hence the Complainant has approached this Commission for appropriate relief.
Contd……p/2
Page: 2
Though the O.P.1 appeared before this Commission but no W.V. was filed on their behalf though a joint W.V. was filed on behalf of O.P.2 to 8 who are partners of O.P. 1 Real Estate Company. Except denial nothing has been disclosed in the W.V. regarding repayment of the consideration money.
-: Decision with reasons: -
Having regard to the facts of the case, submission, contentions and documents on record particularly the agreement for sale dated: 09/09/2015 and the Money Reciepts the Commission finds that the O.P.s have failed to discharge their duties by non-construction of the flat and non-delivery of possession in favour of the Complainant according to the terms and conditions of the contract and as such they are liable to pay back the consideration money of Rs.8 Lakh already advanced by the Complainant for the same with the compensation. There is no forfeiture Clause in the agreement for sale and the O.P.s have not pleaded for the same in the W.S. The Complainant is therefore entitled to get Rs.8 Lakh as the advance consideration money with compensation of Rs.2 Lakh for such delay and lapses in repaying the consideration money and not completing the construction of the flat with other ancillaries.
The case therefore succeeds.
Hence it is ordered……..
That the case be and the same is allowed on contest against O.P. 2 to 8 but Ex-Parte against O.P.1 but without cost.
The O.P.s are directed jointly and severally to pay to the Complainant Rs.8 Lakh with compensation of Rs.2 Lakh in all Rs.10 Lakh within a month from this date in default the law will take its own course.
Both parties be supplied copy of this order free of cost.
____________________ _________________ _________________
HON’BLE PRESIDENT HON’BLE MEMBER HON’BLE MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.