IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC/183/2016
Date of Filing: 28.12.16 Date of Final Order: 12.09.19
Complainant: Md.Anowar Hossain Molla
S/o Md.Ahia Hossain Molla
Vill. Solua Danga, P.O. Bejpara,
PS-Berhampore,
Dist-Murshidabad
Present Address :Lecturer in ETCE, MCB Inst. of Engg. and Technology
P.O. & Dist. Burdwan, PIN 713101
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. Mesba Construction
40/2, Exhibition Bagan Road,Gorabazar,
PO&PS-Berhampore,
Dist-Murshidabad Pin-742101
Represented by its proprietor
Mesbahul Islam,
S/O Md. Sademan Ali
Maa Medical Store,
Opposite to Raghunathganj Hospital,
PO&PS-Raghunathganj,
Dist-Murshidabad, Pin-742225
2. Mesbahul Islam,
S/O Md. Sademan Ali
Maa Medical Store,
Opposite to Raghunathganj Hospital,
PO&PS-Raghunathganj,
Dist-Murshidabad, Pin-742225
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri Sambarta Mukherjee
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party : Sri Siddhartha Gupta
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati…………………. President.
Smt. Aloka Bandhopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
ASISH KUMAR SENAPATI, PRESIDING MEMBER.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One : Md.Anowar Hossain Molla (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Mesba Construction and another (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation, alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainant booked a flat measuring about 907.85 Sq. ft. on the 3rd floor bearing No. A of the proposed multi storied of the OPs and paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as advance on 18.08.15 against proper receipt out of Rs. 16,00,000/-. The OPs assured that the possession would be delivered within 25.11.16. But after expiry of the time limit , the OPs neither handed over opposition of the said flat to the Complainant nor executed any sale deed in favor of the Complainant in spite of repeated reminders. Hence, the Complainant has filed this case praying for order directing the OPs either to deliver possession of the said flat or to refund the advance along with present rate of banking interest and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment and loss of interest.
The case was filed on 28.12.16 and admitted on 04.01.17. The OPs put their appearance and filed written version on 22.09.17 inter alia denying materials allegations made out in the complaint, contending that the price of the flat was Rs.4,000/- per Sq. ft. and the total value would be Rs.36,31,400/- . As the Complainant has not paid entire amount of Rs.36,31,400/- ,he is not entitled to get delivery of the flat. It is the specific case of the OPs that the OPs handed over black signed receipts to one Gautam Kundu on good faith as he was the owner of the land over which the flats were constructed and he misused the receipts illegally.. The OPs prayed for dismissal of the Complainant.
On the basis of the above versions following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
Points for decision
- Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP, as alleged ?
- Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Point No.1
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant paid Rs.2,50,000/- against money receipts No.4 dated 18.08.2015 executed by the OP No.2 (Annexure-1) and so the Complainant is a consumer.
None on behalf of the OPs has taken part in hearing of argument.
Having gone through written complaint, written version, evidence of the Complainant and the document filed by the Complainant, we find that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Point No.2
The Complainant submits that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within pecuniary limit of the District Forum.
On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Point Nos. 3&4
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the OP No.2 for booking of a flat but the OPs neither refunded the said amount nor handed over possession of 907.85 Sq. ft. flat to the Complainant. It is urged that the OPs have deficiency in service and the Complainant is entitled to get orders against the OPs.
It is the allegation of the Complainant that he paid a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- as advance for a flat and it is clear from money receipt No.4 dated 18.08.15 duly executed by the OPs ( Annex= 1). The OP No.2 is none but the proprietor of OP No.1. The OPs have alleged in their written version that the OP No.2 handed over signed blank receipts to one Gautam Kundu on good faith and he misused the receipt but we find no reason to believe the version of the OPs that the money receipt dated 18.08.15 was not issued by the OPs on receipt of advance of Rs.2,50,000/- on condition to adjust the sum amount against allotted flat. The Complainant has prayed for a direction upon the OPs either to refund of the advance amount with interest and compensation or delivery of flat and compensation against the OPs.
The OPs received Rs.2,50,000/- on 18.08.15 against proper money receipt as advance for booking of a flat but the OPs has neither delivered the said said flat to the Complainant on receiving the due amount nor refunded the advance with interest to the complainant. In our considered opinion, the OPs have deficiency in service.
On a careful consideration, we think that the OPs may be directed to refund the advance amount of Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum with effect from 18.08.15 till payment to the Complainant.
The OPs may also be directed to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 28.12.16 and admitted on 04.01.17 . This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the Consumer case succeeds.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No. CC/183/2016 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the OPs with cost of Rs.5,000/-.
The OPs be directed to refund the advance amount of Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum with effect from 18.08.15 till payment to the Complainant.
The OPs also be directed to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost to the Complainant.
The OPs are directed to comply the order by 45 days from the date of this order
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
President.
Member President.
