Hon’ble Mrs. Soma Bhattacharjee, Member

Ld. Advocate for OP no. 2 is present.

Complainant Duke Roy has filed CC/919/2017 against OP no. 1. M/s Vedic Realty Pvt. Ltd. OP no. 2 M/s India Bulls, Distribution Services Ltd. and OP No. 3 M/s. Central Bank of India, Park Street Branch under C.P. Act, 1986.

The brief facts of the case is as follows: On 12.02.2014 OP no. 1 and 2 issued a public advertisement inviting buyers to buy flats to be built and sold by them. Accordingly the complainant made an application to purchase a flat as per schedule and OP no. 1 issued one allotment letter dt. 12.02.2014. The schedule of the flat being C-4 Ivy Green in Vedic Village at Shikarpur P.O. Bagu, P.S. Rajarhat, Kolkata 700135.

On 09.07.2014 OP no. 1 signed and executed an Agreement for Sale with the complainant. Para 6, article 9 of this agreement states that the process of building and sale will be completed by 36 months from this date, with an extended period of 6 more months if necessary. The consideration value of the flat was fixed at Rs. 30,21,500/- and the complainant paid Rs. 6,31,369/- as part consideration value to the OP no. 1 (receipt is annexed with the record). On 09.07.2014 / 16.08.2014 OP no. 3 Central Bank of India Park Street Branch executed a tripartite agreement with the complainant and OP no. 1 regarding payment of loan amounting to Rs. 25,36,000/- to the complainant towards purchase of the scheduled flat. The bank would give a moratorium period to the complainant / borrower and would start deduction of EMI for loan repayments from the bank account of the complainant after two years of date of sanction of loan i.e. 16.08.2014.

On 17.07.2015 the OP no. 1 sent a notice to the complainant asking him to pay an escalated consideration of Rs. 31,64,000/- instead of the original agreed price of Rs. 30,21,500/- on the ground that OP no. 1 Vedic Realty was making a unilateral revision of area from 990 sq. ft. to 1040 sq. ft as per assessment of their own architect.

On 19.04.2017 the proforma OP No. 3 Central Bank of India, Park Street Branch sent a letter to the complainant asking him to start paying EMI from October 2017. The complainant sent various letters of objection to OP nos. 1, 2 & 3 to protest against unilateral rate revision and delay of handing over possession of the flat. However, he received no reply from any of the OPs.

The complainant has alleged that OP no. 3 Central Bank of India Park Street Branch, for the immoral and intentional wrongful gain have disbursed the remaining consideration value to the OP no. 1 amounting to Rs. 25,36,000/-.  Although as per the agreement the Bank was supposed to make physical inspection of the actual extent of construction of the property and only then disburse proportionate consideration value to the developer. As per the letter of sanction of loan, the disbursement mode on the part of the bank would be “In case of loan amount in excess of Rs. 20,00,000/-, direct disbursement will be made to the builder through demand draft. After completion of the construction a final certificate from the Architect shall be submitted within 30 days from date of completion of the work.” The Bank has compelled the complainant to pay EMI against the loan disbursed to the developer without actual physical verification of the construction.

After CC/919/2017 was filed and the OP nos. 1, 2 & 3 received notices OP nos. 1, 2, & 3 entered appearance and filed evidence on affidavit. OP no. 2, M/s India Bulls, Distribution Services Ltd. was debarred from filing reply to questionnaire of the complainant. OP no. 2 stated that their role is limited to identifying the customer and introducing them to the developer and they are not party to the development agreement whatsoever.

The complainant has prayed for refund of Rs. 6,31,369/- paid to the OP no. 1. He has prayed for compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment. He has also prayed to be relieved from the loan liability of the from OP no. 3 and a litigation costs, in terms of provisions of C.P. Act, 1986.

The written documents, evidence on affidavit, money receipts etc have been carefully scrutinised. The submissions of the Ld. Counsels have also been heard and considered.

It transpires that OP no. 1 has received consideration from the complainant for handing over a complete flat as per schedule to him but he has been deficient in delivery of service as the flat is still incomplete and yet to be handed over to the complainant as per provisions of C.P. Act, 1986. The complainant who is a consumer, is therefore entitled to be allowed the relief as prayed for.

The CC/919/2017 therefore, succeeds on contest and is allowed.

Opposite Party no. 1 is directed to refund Rs. 6,31,369/- to the complainant within 60 days along with an interest of 9% p.a (from the last date of payment made by the complainant  i.e. 28.08.2014) as compensation for harassment.

The OP no. 1 will pay a litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant within 60 days from pronouncement of this order.

If the Opposite Party no. 1 does not comply with this judgment within the stipulated period, the complainant will be at liberty to put this order into execution.

CC/919/2017 is hereby disposed of.

Free plain copies be delivered to all parties.