Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajarhat (New Town ) | Kreta Suraksha Bhavan,Rajarhat(New Town),2nd Floor | Premises No. 38-0775, Plot No. AA-IID-31-3, New Town,P.S.-Eco Park,Kolkata - 700161 |
|
|
Complaint Case No. CC/249/2021 | ( Date of Filing : 07 Sep 2021 ) |
| | 1. Rubi Kana Chowdhury W/o Tushar Kanti Chowdhury | Permanently Residing at R K Mission Road, P.O- Bidyapara, P.S- Dhubri, Pin- 783324, Dist- Dhubri Assam. Presently Residing at HH-20/1/21, Gopal Bhawan, Baguipara, Baguiati, P.O- Aswini Nagar, P.S- Baguiati, Kolkata-700159, Dist- North 24 Parganas, West Bengal. | 2. Riddhiman Chowdhury S/o Tushar Kanti Chowdhury | Permanently Residing at R K Mission Road, P.O- Bidyapara, P.S- Dhubri, Pin- 783324, Dist- Dhubri Assam. |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
Versus | 1. M/s. Usashi Realstates Pvt. Ltd. | Office at Premises No. 594/1, Dakshindari Road, Bima Abasan, Flat No. E2/1, 1st Floor, P.O- Sreebhumi, P.S- Lake Town, Kolkata-700048, Dist- North 24 Parganas, West Bengal. | 2. Mr. Supriya Patra S/o Sri Asis Kumar Patra | Residing at Village Radhapur, P.O- Madhabpur, P.S- Bhupatinagar, Pin- 721626, Dist- Purba Medinipur, West Bengal. |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
|
BEFORE: | | | HON'BLE MR. Lakshmi Kanta Das PRESIDENT | | HON'BLE MR. Partha Kumar Basu MEMBER | | HON'BLE MRS. Sagarika Sarkar MEMBER | |
|
|
Dated : 04 Jan 2023 |
Final Order / Judgement | - The OP being realtors floated a housing project names as “King Town , New Town” at the beginning of 2017 under P.S.- Cossipore and within local limits of Bhagabanpur Gram Panchayat in the district of South 24 pgs. and made advertisement inviting application from the prospective buyers of flats. The complainant being in need of the dwelling unit applied on 23.05.2017 for a 3BHK flat having a covered are of 728 sq.ft. together with a covered car parking space by making payment of Rs. 2,47,627/- + Rs. 1,65,084/- totalling Rs. 4,12,711/-. Accordingly she entered into an agreement by and between them on 30.10.2017 and the said agreement bears a clear mention about the payment of Rs. 4,12,711/- being made by the complainant. But the developer did not take up the construction work for the said housing project seriously and the request made by the complainant for expedious completion of the same fell on deaf years of the authorities concerned. On 18.10.2019 a written request was also made by the complainant for the said end. The complainant had no option but to opt for cancellation of the agreement by sending a letter dated 12.02.2019.
- In response to the letter dated 12.02.2019, the OPs asked the complainant to get in touch with one of its employee namely Ranjan Panda for getting refund but in vain. The complainant, under such a peculiar situation had to file a case on 07.09.2021 seeking refund of Rs. 3,87,711/- with interest, compensation and cost.
- With a view to contest the case, the OP filed W/V but ultimately skipped the next stage of proceeding including the stage of argument. The case was practically heard ex-parte.
- In support of her case, the complainant has filed (1) evidence on affidavit, (2) copies of money receipts, (3) copy of agreement, dated 30.10.2017, (4) copy of booking slip dated 23.05.2017, (5) copy of letters sent by the complainant to the OP dated 16.08.2019, 23.09.2019, 18.10.2019 and also the copy of letter received from the OP on 27.06.2019. Those documents filed by the complainant have gone unchallenged for which they may be supposed to carry unfettered evidentiary value. The documents on record are sufficient to prove that a sum of Rs. 4,12,711/- was paid by the complainant against receipt for purchasing a flat together with a car parking space in King Town, New Town housing complex. It is also abundantly clear from the documents on record that the said housing project did not see the light of the day and that the complainant had no other option but to seek for refund of the paid amount.\
- Obviously the OP floated the aforesaid housing project for collection of fund from the prospective buyers with assurance to provide them with flats and in this way they have unjustly utilised the money belonging to others for their own benefits. The complainant is one of them. He also invested a huge sum of money i.e. Rs. 4,12,711/- for purchasing a flat in King Town New Town. But time came when he could come to his senses about the intention of the OP and it is then only he sought for refund. The OP who unjustly retained the money belonging to the complainant for their own benefit are under sheer obligation to cause refund of the sum. The complainant who has been running from pillar to post since the beginning of 2018 is entitled to compensation and considering the volume of his sufferance the amount of compensation may be fixed at Rs. 80,000/-. He will also get a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on account of litigation cost.
- It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has sought for refund of Rs. 3,87,711/ -although he advanced Rs. 4,12,711/-. Since his prayer relates to Rs. 3,87,711/- there will be an order directing the OP to return Rs. 3,87,711/- to the complainant with interest @ 10% per annum with effect from 23.05.2017 till realization.
- The case is thus disposed off with the following direction :-
- The OP will pay Rs. 3,87,711/- - (Rupees three lakh eighty seven thousand seven hundred eleven) to the complainant with interest @ 10% per annum with effect from 23.05.2017 till realization within a period of 45 days hence, failing which the amount will carry interest @ 12% per annum.
- The OP will also pay the sum of Rs. 80,000/- as compensation and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation cost totalling Rs. 1,00,000/- within a period of 45 days hence, failing which the amount will carry interest @ 12% per annum.
Let a plain copy be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR. Dictated and corrected by [HON'BLE MR. Lakshmi Kanta Das] PRESIDENT | |
|
| [HON'BLE MR. Lakshmi Kanta Das] | PRESIDENT
| | | [HON'BLE MR. Partha Kumar Basu] | MEMBER
| | | [HON'BLE MRS. Sagarika Sarkar] | MEMBER
| | |