Hon’ble Mr. Ajeya Matilal, Presiding Member

          Today is fixed for ex parte hearing of the case. The complainant files BNA.

          Heard the submission of the Ld. Advocate for the complainant.

          Considered.
          This is a case u/s 17 of the C.P. Act, 1986 valued at Rs. 25,00,000/-.

          The fact of the case is in short like that the complainant was a senior citizen of India aged about 70 years being a widow. She expired and substituted by her legal heir being his son.

          The OP no. 1 is a company under companies Act 1956 and the OP nos. 2 to 6 are the directors of the OP no. 1 company and they are looking after day to day affairs of the company concerned. The OP no. 7 is the owner of the land as mentioned in the agreement for sale dt. 29.11.2012. The original complainant was approached by OP no. 1 through their representative cum director Mr. Avik Ranjan Ghosh being the OP no. 2. The complainant was looking for a 2BHK flat for residing. So, the original complainant entered into an agreement for sale on 28.11.2012 for purchasing a flat mentioned in the schedule of the complaint as well as in agreement for sale. The tripartite agreement for sale dt. 28.11.2012 is enclosed as annexure A. The total consideration was Rs. 20 lakhs mentioned in schedule C of the agreement. The original complainant paid Rs. 15 lakhs through different cheques viz. Cheque no. 508683 dt. 30.11.2012 for Rs. 2 lakhs, 13478 dt. 07.03.2013 for Rs. 5 lakhs, 134789 dt. 1.04.2013 for Rs. 2 lakhs, 134791 dt. 19.04.2013 for Rs. 3 lakhs drawn on Allahabad Bank Rashbehari Avenue branch. Cheque no. 864475 dt. 19.12.2012 for Rs. 2 lakhs, 864476 dt. 13.01.2013 for Rs. 1 lakh drawn on UCO bank Rajdanga Main Road branch. The original complainant paid Rs. 5 lakhs through cash i.e. 4 lakhs was paid on 3.12.2012 and Rs. 1 lakh was paid on 08.12.2012. The endorsement regarding receiving of the said amount is enclosed in continuing page 29 of the complaint. As per clause no. 10 of the agreement for sale the committed date of delivery of possession was within 12 months from the date of agreement subject to full payment.

The complainant paid the full consideration amount as we discussed earlier but in spite of that the OPs did not deliver the possession of the flat to the original complaint.  In spite of making payment the OP/developer failed to complete the construction and the construction was completed subsequently. The complainant requested the OP/developer orally for giving possession of the flat. But in spite of that the OPs did not do the needful. Initially the OPs appeared before this Commission filed power but subsequently they did not contest the same and did not file any W.V so the case proceeded ex parte against them. The OP no. 7 being the landowner contested the case initially by filing W.V. According to her it was a dispute between the developers and the complainant and she has nothing to say in this regard because the flat in question is within developer’s allocation. In the complaint the complainant prayed for interest @ 20% p.a. on the amount advanced by him as mentioned in the clause 10 of the agreement.

As the OP no. 1 did not comply with the request of the complainant, the complainant lodged the G.D.E on 16.07.2017 with the local police station stating the entire fact. She stated further that on 08.07.2017 she visited the house of the OP no. 2 but seeing her, OP no. 2 abused her in a filthy language. So, the complainant filed this case with a prayer for handing over the possession of the said flat along with execution and registration of deed of conveyance, alternatively with a prayer for refund of the said amount.

The original complainant adduced evidence on affidavit. After substitution the substituted complainant Biplab Kumar Banerjee adduced evidence on affidavit. There is nothing to disbelieve the evidence adduced by him.

Summing up the discussion it can be stated that the complainant is a consumer. She paid Rs. 20 lakhs to the OPs. In spite of receiving the said sum, the OPs did not render the service promised by them. We have also perused the agreement for sale, money receipts, cheques, G.D.E concerned etc mentioned earlier. So, definitely there is deficiency in service on their part. So, the case succeeds and the complainant is entitled to relief as prayed for.

Hence it is ordered

The case no. CC/107/2018 is allowed ex parte against the OPs with litigation costs of Rs. 10,000/- payable by OP nos. 1 to 6. The OPs are directed to deliver the possession of the scheduled flat mentioned in the agreement for sale and execute and register a deed of conveyance within 60 days from the date of this judgment and OP nos. 1 to 6 are directed to pay interest @10% p.a. from the date of execution of the agreement for sale till delivery of possession, failing which, the complainant will be at liberty to put the award into execution. Alternatively, the OP nos. 1 to 6 are directed to refund of Rs. 20,00,000/- to the complainant along with an interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of execution of the agreement for sale after 60 days from this judgment but within 60 days from expiry of  the said period.