FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

SHRI SWAPAN KUMAR MAHANTY, PRESIDENT

            The short facts given rise to the present case are that the OPs 2 to 5 are the Directors of the OP-1 M/S Greentech IT City Pvt. Ltd. and the OP-1 launched a residential township project  namely  “Greentech City-Eco Homes” at Ultar Gazipur, PS-Kashipur, Kolkta-700135. OP-1 invited application for booking of flats and car parking space in the said project from intending purchasers. Complainants filed an application being No. B-GTECH/00761/16-17 dated 07.06.2016 to buy one residential Unit being No. HF-4-FF-12 on 4^th floor, in Block No. HF, Tower No. 4 of the said project along with application money of Rs. 1,04,500/- vide cheque bearing  No. 375108 dated 03.06.2016 of Axis Bank Ltd. Golpark Branch to the OP-1 against money receipt. OP-1 accepted the application of the complainants vide letter dated  20.07.2016 and also mentioned the schedule of payment. The total consideration price of the Unit No. HF-4FF-12 is Rs. 17,08,000/- including all taxes. In terms of the payment schedule complainants have paid Rs.  2,95,000/- with the OP-1 towards part of the sale consideration against money receipts. Despite several request the OP-1 did not update any information regarding construction of the said project nor execute any Agreement for Sale. Ultimately, the complainants cancelled the booking of Unit vide email dated  08.07.2017 to M/s. Indidabulls Distribution services Ltd. being the advertisement parter of OP-1 and also sought refund of Rs. 3,99,500/-. The project has not yet been started. OP-1 did not give any reply regarding delay of construction work. Legal notice dated 08.02.2018 was unattended. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainants have filed the present consumer complaint seeking reliefs as mentioned in the prayer.

             The complaint is resisted by the OPs in which it is contended that the dispute is Civil nature and Civil Court is appropriate Forum for the adjudication of the case. It is also stated that the complainants are not “consumers” under the Consumer Protection Act. The complainants have booked the unit for commercial purpose and matter therefore related the sale purchase of immovable property which does not any deficiency in service. This Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain  the complaint as the total value of the service along with compensation and interest is more that Rs.  20 Lacs. Despite demands, the complainants failed to make payment of installments. Thus, the relief sought by the complainants is not tenable and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            In support of their claim, Complainant No. 1 Mr. Gopal Sammadar tendered his evidence supported by an affidavit. Complainants have also relied documents i.e. A to H annexed with the complaint petition.

            To rebut the aforesaid evidence OP-3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Uday Modi, Director of OP-1 M/S Green Tech IT City Pvt. Ltd. OPs did not rely any documents in support of their defense.

             We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions, raised by the Ld. Advocate of the parties and have carefully gone through the record of the case as well as the written arguments.

            Admittedly, the complainants have booked Unit No. HF-4-FF-12,  4^th floor at Block-HF in Greentech City Eco Homes at Uttar Gazipur, Kolkata-700135 against application No. B-GTCEH/00761/16-17 dated 07.06.2016 (Annexure-A) on payment of Rs.  1,04,500/- and the OP-1 vide letter dated 20.07.2016 confirmed the said booking subject to certain terms & conditions. Total sale consideration of the subject Unit is Rs. 17,08,000/- including service tax  (Annexure-B).  On perusal of Annexure-C, it is clear that the complainants have paid Rs.  2,95,000/- to the OP-1 on 10.08.2016, 27.09.2016 and  10.11.2016 as per schedule of payment  (Annexure-B). OPs did not execute any Agreement for Sale in respect of the subject Unit and Car Parking Space with the complainants despite receiving Rs.  3,99,500/-. Thus,  the question of further payment as per schedule does not arise.

            OPs failed to produce any evidence show that complainants have booked the subject unit and car parking space for resale and/or commercial purpose. Therefore, the plea taken by the OPs is not tenable.

            It is true that construction of the project has not yet started though the booking was confirmed by the OP-1 on  20.07.2016. Complainants  cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the delivery of possession while retaining the amounts deposited by the complainants, is not only an act of deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice. Ultimately, the complainants cancelled the booking vide E-mails  and legal notice (Annexure-D to H). Those E-mails and legal notice were unattended. We find both deficiency in service within the meaning of sections 2 (II) and unfair trade practice within the meaning of Section  2 (47) to be well and truly evident on the part of the OPs. It is settled law that the complainants being the purchasers of the flat for residential purpose is “Consumers” under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

            Ld. Advocate for the OPs vehemently argued that District Commission have no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the total value of the service along with compensation and interest is more than Rs. 20 lacs. We find that pecuniary jurisdiction ground taken up by the OPs is totally untenable. We would like to refer, section 34 (1) of the CP Act, 2019 which is reproduced below for ready reference:-

            34.(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the grounds or services paid as consideration does not exceed one Crore Rupees:-

            Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit.

            Keeping in view of section  34 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act,  2019 the contension of the Ld. Advocate for the OPs is not acceptable as the consumer protection act,  1986 is repeated.

            In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint is allowed on contest against the OPs with following directions:-

1. OPs are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.  3,99,500/- (Rupees Three lacs Ninety nine thousand Five hundred) only to the complainants with simple interest  at the rate of  9  percentp.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the actual date of payment failing which the amount shall attract the interest  at the rate of  12  percentp.a. from the same period.
2. OPs are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.  25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only to the complainants for unfair trade practice.
3. OPs are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only to the complainants towards the cost of litigations.
4. OPs shall pay the aforesaid awarded amount to the complainants within  08 weeks from the date of passing of this order.

Copy of the judgment be supplied to the parties as per rules. Upload this order on the website of  this commission for perusal of the parties.