Date of Filing : 28/01/2015

Order No.  20  dt.  24/01/2018 

          Fact of the case according to the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant booked a plot within the Film City project of M/s Desire Agro Resort Development Private Ltd., P/25 Hemanta Mukherjee Sarani , Kolkata-29 (op-1) on 08.08.2003 by payment of Rs.10,000/- for purchasing it with its development for residential purpose at Mouza- Chakbalaibag, area 1440sq.ft. at Dag No.71, Khatian No.183, J.L.No.84, P.O –Nepalgung   under Bishnupur P.S. in South 24-Parganas at a consideration of Rs.1, 65,000/-. OP-3 on accepting the booking amount of Rs10,000/- requested the complainant to pay the rest amount of Rs.1,55,000/- against the plot no 159 of the Film City project measuring 2160 sq.ft on 19.09.2003 . Thereafter, complainant paid Rs 40,000/- on 28.08.2003 and Rs1,15,000/- on 20.10.2003 against receipt  against which op-3 issued a letter of acknowledgement of acceptance of the balance amount of Rs 1,55,000/-0n 29.10.2003. In the mean time op-3 had issued offer letter on 12.09 2003. But after perennial persuasion, op-3 had compelled to execute registration of  debenture in respect of the proposed transaction between the parties on 11.01.2005 ie after two years. Since then ops did not take any initiative either for transferring of interest in property of land  or for handing over possession of the developed land, Complainant sent a legal notice on 24.12.2014 and thereafter lodged the complaint praying for refund of Rs.1,65,,000/- with interest and with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and mental agony .

            O.p. contested the case by submitting w/v. In the w/v, o.p. denied all allegations made against them. Ld. Lawyer of the o.p. argued that the case of the complainant is a prayer for refund of the money from the o.ps for which the case can be adjudicated only before the competent Civil Court. The Film City project of the o.ps has been abandoned due to imposition of restriction stipulated by the government and the local authorities and also for some legal impediment and as such not providing of the plot to the complainant by the o.ps was beyond the control and was due to unavoidable circumstances for which there was no deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps as alleged by the complainant. Therefore, op is not liable to pay any compensation, cost etc. to the complainant and as such the prayer for compensation is liable to be rejected with exemplary cost.  It is further stated that mere writing of letter or making of communication one after another to the o.ps does not and cannot continue the cause of action for which the complaint case is liable to be dismissed.

         On the basis of submission of the respective parties the following points are to be decided:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of the o.ps?

 2      Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?  

Decision with reasons

     All points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.

       Considering the submission of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that complainant entered into an agreement with o.p. for purchasing a plot with its development and complainant paid the whole amount of Rs1,65,000/- as fixed by the op against the plot within the time frame. OP-3 on accepting the booking amount of Rs10,000/- requested the complainant to pay the rest amount of Rs.1,55,000/- against the plot no 159 of Film City project measuring 2160 sq.ft on 19.09.2003 . Thereafter, complainant paid Rs 40,000/- on 28.08.2003 and Rs1,15,000/- on 20.10.2003  against which op-3 issued acknowledgement of acceptance of the balance amount of Rs 1,55,000/-on 29.10.2003. . Again, op-3 executed registration of the debenture of the property to be purchased, between the parties on 11.01.2005. Thus, the hard earned money of the complainant had been remained blocked continuously for a period of 14 (Fourteen) years and the value of the land had been increased considerably in the meantime.

          O.ps had miserably failed to provide the land within the terms and condition of the agreement. Therefore, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps otherwise it would be termed as unfair trade practice for which o.ps. are liable to pay compensation and cost . Since the o.ps did not refund the amount in spite of repeated requests of the complainant, it is therefore, considered that there was Unfair Trade Practices on the part of the ops. Hence, the complainant is entitled to get relief. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.

Hence, ordered.

       that the case no.41/2015 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps. O.ps are jointly and/or severally, directed to pay Rs.1,65,000/-( Rupees one lakh sixty five  thousand ) only to the complainant with compensation of Rs.60,000/-( Rupees sixty thousand ) only and litigation cost of Rs.3,000/- ( rupees Three thousand ) only . O.ps. are also directed to pay the aforesaid amount within 30 days from the date of this order i.d., an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.