West Bengal

Rajarhat

CC/277/2021

Subrata Paul, S/o Mantu Paul - Complainant(s)

Versus

Priyobala Sil, W/o Late Bilash Chandra Sil - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.Abir Sarkar

21 Nov 2022

ORDER

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/277/2021
( Date of Filing : 16 Sep 2021 )
 
1. Subrata Paul, S/o Mantu Paul
P-22,Pragati Pally, near Kalindi, P.O & P.S-Lake Town, Dist-North 24 Parganas, Kolkata-700089
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Priyobala Sil, W/o Late Bilash Chandra Sil
93A, Lalgarh Colony, P.S-Dum Dum,P.O-Ghughudanga, Dist-North 24 Parganas, Kolkata-700030
2. Anjali Sil (Senapati), W/o Sankar Senapati
93A, Lalgarh Colony, P.S-Dum Dum, P.O-Ghughudanga, Dist-North 24 Parganas, Kolkata-700030
3. Kanan Sadhu (Sil), W/o Shyamal Sadhu
93A, Lalgarh Colony, P.S-Dum Dum, P.O-Ghughudanga, Dist-North 24 Parganas, Kolkata-700030
4. M/s Mahamaya Construction, represented by its sole proprietress Barnali Acharya
166, S.K.B.Sarani, Kolkata-700030
5. Barnali Acharya,W/o Shyamal Acharya sole proprietress of M/s Mahamaya Construction
166, S.K.B.Sarani,P.S-Dum Dum Kolkata-700030
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Lakshmi Kanta Das PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Sagarika Sarkar MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 21 Nov 2022
Final Order / Judgement

Case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant was intended to purchase one self-contained residential flat developed by OP no 4, situated at Mouza- Kalidaha, municipal holding no 101/2, Lalgarh Colony,Ward No.17, P.S. Dumdum, Kolkata-700030 on the super built up area of 1074 sq.ft.. Accordingly the complainant paid total amount of Rs.10,00,000/- out of total consideration of Rs 21,00,000/-. It is stated by the complainant that after payment of approximately 50% of the total consideration money the OPno.4 did not prepare any agreement for sale in spite of several requests made by the complainant. At last the complainant prepared an Agreement for sale and sent it for the approval of the OP no 4 but till date OP no 4 did not execute the same. It is further stated by the complainant that the OP no 4 agreed to complete the  construction work of the building within January 2017.On several occasions the complainant requested the OPno4 to receive the balance consideration money and to register the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the complainant but OP did nothing to that effect. The complainant sending Advocate’s letter on 06.09.2016 requested the OPno4 to accept the balance consideration and to register the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the complainant but all in vain. Finding no other alternatives the complainant files this case praying for direction upon the OPs to register the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the complainant by accepting the balance consideration alongwith compensation and cost of litigation.  

Notices were served upon all the OPs through newspaper publication. In spite of that none appeared on behalf of the OPs and no written version has been filed. Hence the case was proceeded ex parte against all the OPs vide order no 9 dated 27.05.2022.

                                        Decision with reasons

                           The complainant claimed that he paid total amount of Rs. 10,00,000/ to the OP no4, out of which  an amount of Rs 4,00,00/ on 25.06.2017 ,Rs 3,00,000/ on 11.07.2017,Rs 2,00,000/ on 20.08.2017 and Rs1,00,000/ on 13.09.2017.The complainant filed the photocopy of  passbook from where it appears that on 29.06.2017 an amount of Rs 4,00,000/ and on 13.07.2017 an amount of Rs 3,00,000/ has been paid in favour of the OPs but complainant did not file any document to prove that he has paid Rs 10,00,000/ to the OPs and no money receipt was filed in respect of Rs 3,00,000/. However, the OPs who received money from the complainant with an assurance that a flat would be provided to him has neither deliver the flat and nor refunded the amount taken from the complainant till date which tentamounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

In course of hearing Ld. Advocate for the complainant submitted that OPs have not yet started the said project. Hence the Ld. Advocate of the complainant prayed for refund of the paid amount. We think it will be just and proper if a direction be given to the OP to refund the paid amount to the complainant from the date of receiving with interest.

Since the payment made by the complainant have not been refunded and the flat has not been delivered by the OPs, in our view OPs are liable to pay compensation and cost of litigation to the complainant.

In the result, the petition of complaint succeeds.

                    Hence, it is,

                                  Ordered

 that the complaint case being no.CC 277/2021is allowed ex parte with cost against the OPs.

OPs are directed to refund Rs. 7, 00,000/- paid by the complainant with interest @9%p.a from the last date of payment to the complainant within 2 months from this date of order. OPs are further directed to pay Rs. 30,000/- as compensation and Rs. 25,000/- as the cost of litigation to the complainant. All such payments shall be paid within 2 months from this date of order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @12%p.a. till realization.

Let a plain copy be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR.

Dictated and Corrected by

[HON'BLE MRS. Sagarika Sarkar]
MEMBER

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Lakshmi Kanta Das]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Sagarika Sarkar]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.