Date of Filing: 09.01.2020
Date of Judgment: 04.07.2022
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President
This complaint is filed by the complainant , Smt. Mina Mahato @ Mina Ghosh Mahato, under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party ( referred to as O.P hereinafter) namely M/s Manjil Construction represented by partners (1) Sri Kashi Nath Mondal and (2) Sri Tapan Pramanik, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.
The case of the complainant in short is that the O.Ps offered a proposal to the complainant and her sister for purchasing 2 separate flats at the premises no. 107/A, Roy Bahadur Road. So, being allured by the representation of the partners of the O.P Firm, complainant and her sister agreed to purchase the flat and as per verbal assurance by the partner, booked a flat measuring 1032 sq.ft super built up area on the 1st floor north east front side at a total consideration price of Rs. 17,54,000/-. The complainant paid the booking amount of Rs.2 lac in cash and further paid an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- by cheque dated 19.4.2011. So, in total a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- has been paid by the complainant to the O.P. The O.P assured that the agreement for sale in writing will be executed but subsequently in the year 2012 the O.P expressed their inability to construct the proposed building and promised to refund the earnest money of Rs. 4,50,000/- paid by the complainant. The O.P thereafter till the month of April, 2014 refunded only an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-out of Rs. 4,50,000/- paid by the complainant. A complaint was lodged by the complainant before the local P.S and due to their intervention O.P further paid a sum of Rs. 55,000/- in cash on 3.5.2014 and also issued 2 account payee cheque but they were dishonoured. Ultimately complainant filed a complaint before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Cell where the O.P appeared and in a tripartite meeting, paid Rs. 50,000/- only to the complainant. But rest of the amount i.e Rs. 1,95,000/- has not been paid. So, the present complaint has been filed for directing the O.P to refund a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- , to pay compensation of Rs.1 lac and litigation cost of Rs. 30,000/-.
On perusal of the record it appears that notice was sent but inspite of its service even by way of paper publication, no step was taken by the O.P and thus case has been heard exparte.
So, the only point requires determination is whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons
In support of her claim that she paid a total sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- towards booking of a flat measuring 1032 sq.ft , the complainant has filed a receipt issued by the O.P Firm being represented by the partners named in the cause title of the complaint i.e Kasinath Mondal and Tapan Pramanik. The consideration price was settled at Rs.17,54,400/- . It is apparent from the complaint itself that no agreement for sale was entered into between the parties. However, it is stated by the complainant that she was assured by the O.P to execute the agreement for sale but thereafter the O.P expressed its inability to complete the proposed construction and so agreed to return the sum paid by the complainant. The payment of sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- by the complainant is supported by the number of complaints made before the police. It is specifically stated that a total sum of Rs. 4,50,000;/- was paid which is also evident from the receipt as referred to above.
It is the admitted case of the complainant that O.P refunded Rs. 1,50,000/- in April ,2014 and thereafter by the intervention of the police O.P further paid a sum of Rs. 55,000/- and ultimately in a tripartite meeting held by the Consumer Grievance Cell , a further sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid by the O.P. The said fact about the payment of further sum of Rs.50,000/- by the O.P is also evident from the document filed by the complainant relating to the proceeding on the basis of the complaint made by the complainant before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Cell. It is evident from the minute of meeting held on 21.12.2018 that the developer i.e the O.P Firm being represented by partner namely Kasinath Mondal agreed to refund remaining Rs. 2,45,000/- out of which admittedly Rs. 50,000/- only has been paid. So, it is apparent that a sum of Rs. 1,95,000/- is due to be paid by the O.P Firm represented by its partners, to the complainant. So, complainant is entitled to the said sum of Rs.1,95,000/- paid by her from the O.P along with interest on the said sum in the form of compensation .
Hence,
Ordered
That the CC/10/2020 is allowed exparte.
The O.P is directed to refund Rs.1,95,000/- to the complainant along with interest on the said sum @8% p.a from the date of the tripartite meeting held between the parties i.e on 21.12.2018 to till this day within 2 months from this date , in default the entire sum shall carry further interest @8% p.a till full realization .
The O.P is further directed to pay litigation cost of Rs. 8000/- to the complainant within aforementioned period of 2 months.
