Date of filing: 14/11/2019                                        

Date of Judgment: 28/03/2023

Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President.

This complaint is filed by Sri Anup Halder  under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (referred as OPs hereinafter) namely Petals Developer Pvt. Ltd. (2) Sri Uttam Halder and (3) Manor Kumar alleging deficiency in rendering of service on the part of the OP.

Case of the complainant in short is that complainant booked a plot of land in the project namely Petals City and Marine Society Project which was to be developed by the OP 1 being represented by its Director and paid Rs. 1,02,000/- out of total consideration price of Rs. 3,40,000/-. An agreement for sale was entered into between the parties on 25/12/2017. The rest of the amount of Rs. 2,38,000/- was to be paid by the complainant by way of 48 equal monthly instalments till the month of March 2019. Complainant paid the instalments as per the terms of the agreement but thereafter OPs deliberately refused to accept the monthly instalments and asked the complainant to pay rest of the consideration amount at the time of execution and registration of the deed of conveyance. A letter was thus sent by the complainant on 15/05/2017 apprehending that he would be a defaulter but no reply was received from OPs. The complainant has paid in total Rs. 1,71,412/- but on visiting the proposed project it could be observed that no work of development has taken place. Complainant was also not handed over the relevant document of the said project. So the present complaint has been filed praying for directing the opposite parties to refund the sum of Rs. 1,71,412/- along with interest, to pay Rs. 30,000/- as compensation and litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/-.

On perusal of the record it appears that on receipt of the notice, OP 1 & 2 appeared and filed petition challenging maintainability of the complaint which was disposed of vide order dated 18/05/2022. Thereafter OP 1 & 2 did not take any step.

OP 3 however on receipt of the notice did not turn up and thus the 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 REASON

In support of his claim that he agreed to purchase a plot of land, complainant has filed the agreement for sale dated 25/12/2017 wherefrom it appears OP 2 as director of OP 1 agreed to sell a plot of land measuring 2 Cottah and 0 chitak in the project namely Petals City and Marine Society situated in Dag No. 970, Mouza Noabad. The agreement also reveals that the complainant on the date of agreement paid sum of Rs. 1,02,000/- to the OP. Complainant has also filed the several receipts showing further payment towards the purchase of land as per agreement and it supports his claim that in total he has paid sum of Rs. 1,71,412/- out of the total consideration price of Rs. 3,40,000/-. It is evident from the agreement that the complainant had to pay the entire consideration amount by way of 48 equal monthly instalments indicating that the project was to be completed and plot of land was to be handed over to the complainant within four years. Before this commission there is absolutely no contrary material to counter the claim of complainant that no development work has been carried out towards the said project namely Petals City and Marine Society Project. If that be so then it is settled principal of law that a purchaser cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period. So it cannot be said that the case has been filed pre-maturely. It may be pertinent to point out that in the copy of the deed of conveyance dated 10/02/2016 by which OP 2 had purchased the land from the vendor therein, the property in the schedule of the said deed has been described being R.S. Dag No. 970 at Mouza Khanberia where as in the agreement for sale entered into between the parties the Mouza has been described as Noabad, for the reason best known to the OP. Since in this case no development work has been carried out and further the complainant has only prayed for refund of the sum paid by him, wrong description of Mouza in the schedule of the agreement will have no relevance. In such a situation as the complainant has neither been handed over the plot of land nor has been refunded the sum paid by him, he is entitled to the refund of sum along with interest on the said sum as compensation from the date of agreement. However it will not be out of place to mention here that the status of OP No. 3 has not been specified either in the complaint or anywhere in the document filed by the complainant whether he is a Director of the OP 1 Company or an employee. So in such a situation OP 1 & 2 are liable to refund the sum.

Hence

             ORDERED

CC/578/2019 is allowed exparte against OP 1 & 2 and dismissed exparte against OP 3. OP 1 & 2 are directed to refund the sum of Rs. 1,71,412/- to the complainant along with interest on the said sum @ 9% p.a. from the date of agreement i.e. 25/12/2017 to till this date within two months from the date of this order. OP 1 & 2 are further directed to pay litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant within the aforesaid period of two months. In default of payment the entire sum shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. till realisation.