FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT
SHRI SWAPAN KUMAR MAHANTY, PRESIDENT
The instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for brevity, ’the Act’) is at the instance of the intending purchasers against a Private Limited Company and its Managing Director on the allegation of deficiency of services in a dispute of housing construction.
In a capsulated form, complainant’s case is that on going through various advertisements of OP-1/Lord Reality Pvt. Ltd., the complainants intends to purchase 06 cottahs in zone 04 in Lordcity Sonarpur, South 24 Pgs and also paid Rs. 2,10,000/- vide cheqes dated 30.01.2013 and the OP-1 granted money receipt i.e. 11.02.2013 complainants paid Rs. 7,35,000./- to the OP-1 against money receipt. The OP also taken additional amount Rs. 54,000/- for registration of land on 29.12.2016. OP issued allotment letter dated 10.12.2016 . Despite several request the OP-1 did not execute Sale Agreement. In the Draft copy of agreement for sale, it is stipulated the OP-1 company delivered the subject land and bungalow within 42 months from the date of commence of construction.
OPs despite of legal notice of the complainants failed to refund Rs. 9,99,000/- . Finding no other alternative, the complainants to file consumer complaint before this forum seeking redress and relief and incorporated in the prayer of the complaint.
In support of their case, complainant No.1, Mr. Tilak Mitra has tendered evidence through affidavit.
On perusal of consumer complaint, evidence led by the complainant No. 1 coupled with documents annexed therewith, it would reveal that the OP received Rs. 9,99,000/- on different dates against money receipts for allotment of a plot being unit No. C- 19 in Zone -04, Lord city Sonarpur, South 24 Pgs measuring an area of 06 cottahs including registration fees.
It is trite law that the parties are bound by the agreement. A person who sign a document contains certain contractual terms is normally bound by them even though he is ignorant of their precise legal effect. In a decision reported in AIR 1996 SC 2508 ( Bharati Knitting Company –vs- DHL World Wide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd.) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus:
“ It is seen that when a person signs a document which contains certain contractual terms, as rightly pointed out by Mr. R.F Nariman, Ld. Senior Counsel, that normally parties are bound by such contract; it is for the party to establish exception in a suit. When a party to the contract disputes the binding nature of the singed document, it is for him to prove the terms in the contract or circumstances in which he came to sign the documents need to be established.
The question we need to consider is whether the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission could go behind the terms of the contract? It is true, as contended by Mr. M. N. Krishanmani, that in an appropriate case, the Tribunal without trenching upon acute disputed question of facts may decide the validity of the terms of the contract based upon the fact situation and may grant remedy. But each case depends upon it own facts. In an appropriate case where there is an acute dispute of facts necessarily the Tribunal has to refer the parties to original Civil Court established under the CPC or appropriate State law to have the clams decided between the parties. But when there is a specific term in the contract, the parties are bound by the terms in the contract.”
Therefore, it is quite evident that as per draft copy of the agreement for sale the OP-1 company and its Managing Director under obligation to hand over possession of the subject land including bungalow to the complainants within 42 months from the date of commencement of construction.
It is well settled that after making payment of entire consideration amount, a purchaser cannot wait indefinitely for having a roof over his head. In that perspective, when the OPs have failed to handover or delivery of possession of bungalow and land within the time frame and did not keep promise as per terms of the agreement, this itself amounts to deficiency in services.
On evaluation of materials on record, it is quite evident that the complainants being “consumers” hired the services of the OPs in a disputed bungalow construction and the OPs have failed to keep their promise in handing over the possession of bungalow and land as per commitment in favour of the complainants within the stipulated period and thereby deficient in rendering services within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (g) read with section 2 (1) (o) of the Act. In the premises, complainants are entitled to some reliefs. In our view, when there is hardly any chance to complete the construction in near future, an order directing the OPs to refund the amount of Rs. 9,99,000/- along with the compensation in the form of simple interest at the rate of 7 percent P.A. from the date of each payment till its realization will meet the ends of justice. Under compelling circumstances, the complainants have come up in this Forum for which they are entitled to litigation costs which we quantify at Rs. 10,000/-.
In view of the above, consumer complaint is disposed of ex parte with the following directions:-
- The OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 9,99,000/- along with compensation in the form of simple interest at the rate of 7 percentP.A.in favour of the complainants from the date of each payment till its realization.
- The OPs are also directed to make payment of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as costs of litigation in favour of complainants.
- The above payments should be paid within 60 days from the date in terms of the above order failing which the complainants shall be at liberty to execute the order by filing application under the provisions of CP Act against the OPs.
Order be communicated to the complainants as per Rules.
