West Bengal

StateCommission

AEA/21/2023

M/S ALBATROSS DEVELOPERS - Complainant(s)

Versus

PRONAB KUMAR GHOSH - Opp.Party(s)

SANJIT SIL, SANHITA SHAOO

27 Aug 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
WEST BENGAL
11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087
 
Appeal Execution Application No. AEA/21/2023
( Date of Filing : 16 Oct 2023 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 26/09/2023 in Case No. Execution Application No. EA/26/2016 of District Kolkata-II(Central))
 
1. M/S ALBATROSS DEVELOPERS
10, SUBAL CHANDRA LANE
KOLKATA
WEST BENGAL
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. PRONAB KUMAR GHOSH
3D, KHASMAHAL STREET
KOLKATA
WEST BENGAL
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL PRESIDENT
 
PRESENT:SANJIT SIL, SANHITA SHAOO , Advocate for the Appellant 1
 Avijit Bhuina, Saikat Mali, Advocate for the Respondent 1
Dated : 27 Aug 2024
Final Order / Judgement

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

  1. This appeal is at the instance of the appellant and is directed against the order No. 17 dated 26/09/2023 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, Unit-II (Central) (in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with M.A. Case No. 685 of 2022 arising out of execution application No. EA/26/2016 and Complaint Case No. CC/15/2011 whereby the Learned District Commission was pleased to allow the said M.A. Application on contest without any costs.
  1. The Dhr filed the said M.A. Application praying for passing an order to admit the statement of accounts filed by him, in view of the order dated 18/03/2020 passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for R.P. Case No. RP/2998/2015.
  1. The Learned District Commission after hearing both sides has been pleased to allow the said application by the order impugned.
  1. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said impugned order the appellant has preferred this appeal.
  1. Heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant as well as the Learned Advocate appearing for the respondent and carefully perused the record, the memo of appeal and other documents.
  1. Having heard the Learned Advocates appearing for both the parties and on careful perusal of the record it appears to me that the Hon’ble National Commission has been pleased to pass the following order in the form of that in connection with R.P. Case No. RP/2998/2015 :

“In addition to the orders of the Fora below, the Respondents are directed to pay compensation in the form of simple interest @9% p.a. on the amount paid by the Petitioner/Complainant from the committed date of possession till the actual date of delivery of possession. The Revision Petition is accordingly allowed in part with no order as to costs.”

  1. From the above order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission it appears to me that the Hon’ble National Commission has given direction to the respondent to pay compensation in the form of simple interest @ 9% per annum on the amount paid by the petitioner / complainant from the committed date of possession till the actual date of delivery of possession. In the said order the Hon’ble National Commission has also observed that the committed date of possession was February, 2008. The opposite party / Jdr failed to give possession of the subject flat within February, 2008. So, the committed date of possession would be run on and from 01/03/2008 and actual date of delivery of possession was 18/05/2016. In the said order the Hon’ble National Commission has already held that the petitioner / complainant had already paid ₹15,25,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakh and twenty five thousand only) out of total consideration amount of ₹17,00,000/- (Rupees seventeen lakh only). In such a situation I hold that the Jdr should pay compensation in the form of simple interest @ 9% per annum to the Dhr on the amount paid by the petitioner / complainant i.e. ₹15,75,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakh and seventy five thousand only).
  1. After giving due consideration to the submission made by the Learned Advocate appearing for the parties and on scrutiny of the materials available on record including the order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission I do not find any error or material irregularity in passing the order impugned. The Learned District Commission has rightly directed the Jdr to pay compensation to the Dhr in the form of simple interest @ 9% per annum on the amount actually paid by the complainant which is ₹15,75,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakh and seventy five thousand only) on and from 01/03/2008 to 18/05/2016 within 19/11/2023. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned.
  1. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed on contest but without any costs. The impugned order is hereby affirmed. The appeal be and the same is dismissed accordingly.
  1. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, Unit-II (Central) for information.
  1. Office to comply.
  1. I.A. being No. 101/2024 stands disposed of.
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL]
PRESIDENT
 

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.