HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint case under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( in short, ‘the Act’) is at the instance of the complainant Supriti Das against the opposite parties on the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in a consumer dispute of housing construction.

2. In a capsulated form the complaint case in short is that the complainant booked a flat measuring 800 sq. ft. on 3^rd floor at a consideration of Rs.20,80,000/- (Rupees twenty lakh and eighty thousand only) in a multi-storied building constructed by the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 and the complainant entered into an agreement with opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 on 19.05.2017. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.04,16,000/- (Rupees four lakh and sixteen thousand only) out of total consideration price of Rs.20,80,000/- (Rupees twenty lakh and eighty thousand only). The complainant promised to pay the balance consideration amount within the date specified in the agreement.

3. Further case of the complainant are that the complainant made an application before the opposite party No. 5 for a loan. The opposite party No. 5 on receiving the application from the complainant, informed about the discrepancies with regard to the documentation of the developer being opposite party Nos. 1 to 4.  After request the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 complied with the requirement of the bank and the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 told the Bank that there was no discrepancy at all in documentation. In spite of that complainant’s loan could not be processed by the opposite party No. 5. Due to rejection of the loan application by the opposite party No. 5 the complainant failed to pay the balance consideration amount within the agreed period. As such, she filed the present case praying for the following reliefs :-

“a) Admit the present complaint, issue notice upon the opposite party for appearnce and for filing written objection if any ;

b) the opposite party may kindly be directed to immediately refund of the booking money of Rs.4,16,000/- along with appropriate interest till realisation;

c) to pay Compensation of Rs.50,000/- for committing deficiency in service and adopting Unfair Trade Practice by the OPs and thereby causing the Complainant and her entire family to sustain severe harassment, mental agony, anxiety and trauma;

and also

d) to pay Rs.10,000/- as Cost of legal proceedings,

f) Any such further order or orders as this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

4. Notice was duly served upon the opposite parties. All the opposite parties entered appearance in this case and contested the case by filing two separate written versions.

5. The specific case of the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 is that the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 were joint owners of the ‘Bastu’ land in Dag Nos. 247 & 250 under mouza Khalor within Khalor Gram Panchayat for the purpose of constructing a multi-storied building on the aforesaid plots the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 firm, an unregistered partnership firm being opposite party No. 1 and built the said building consisting of 16 flats after obtaining sanction plan from the concerned  Panchayat and Gram Panchayat respectively.

6. Further case of the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 are that the complainant after satisfied with the construction as well as documentation of the said project booked a suit flat at a consideration of Rs.20,80,000/- (Rupees twenty lakh and eighty thousand only). The complainant requested the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 to make addition and alteration at her cost in addition to the consideration price. Accordingly, the complainant and the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 entered into an agreement for sale on 19.05.2017 and the complainant made a part payment of Rs.04,06,000/- (Rupees four lakh and six thousand only).

7. Further case of the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 are that by the letter dated 01.06.2017 they requested the complainant to pay the balance consideration amount. By letter dated 13.06.2017 the complainant agreed to pay the additional cost of extra work for addition and alteration work made as per the desire of the complainant. Without making payment of the balance amount in pursuance to the notice as well as her assurance to make payment the complainant sent a legal notice which was unacceptable to the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 on the plea that the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 are the partners of the opposite party No. 1 partnership firm and also are the owners of the land.

8. Further case of the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 are that SBI, another Bank already provided loans to the other purchasers of the flats of the same project.

9. Further case of the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 are that opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 sent a notice on 27.09.2017 to the complainant by post by claiming the balance consideration amount as well as cost of additional work as done as per her desire but without making payment the complainant filed the instant case.

10. Further case of the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 are that there is no complaint in respect of construction of flat but for not providing loan to the complainant by the Bank are at issue. Whether the Bank authority would provide loan to the complainant or not these opposite parties have nothing to say about it.

11. Hence, the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 have prayed for dismissal of the case with costs.

12. The specific case of the opposite party No. 5 are that the opposite party No. 5 Bank has no connection with the complaint case and the Bank has been unnecessarily impleaded as a party in the instant proceeding. The opposite party No. 5 communicated a letter dated 07.11.2017 to the complainant that without depositing registered documents, development agreement and Power of Attorney, the sanction of home loan could not be possible. The opposite party No. 5 also requested the complainant to deposit registered development agreement and Power of Attorney as early as possible so that the Bank can sanction the house building loan in her favour. After receiving the letter from the opposite party No. 5, the complainant did not deposit the registered development agreement and / or Power of Attorney before that Bank. As a result, no house building loan has been sanctioned to the complainant.

13. In such a situation, the opposite party No. 5 has prayed for dismissal of the case against him with costs.

14. Both the parties adduced their evidence on affidavit. The questionnaires and replies filed by the parties were exchanged to each other.

15. Upon hearing the Learned Advocate appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record and the documents it appears to me that it is an admitted position that the complainant booked a flat measuring 800 sq. ft. on 3^rd floor at a consideration of Rs.20,80,000/- (Rupees twenty lakh and eighty thousand only) in a multi-storied building constructed by the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4.

16. It is also an admitted position that both the complainant and opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 entered into an agreement for sale on 19.05.2017 and the complainant paid a sum of Rs.04,16,000/- (Rupees four lakh and sixteen thousand only).

17. It is also an admitted position that the complainant failed to pay the balance consideration amount due to non granting of loan in favour of the complainant by the opposite party No. 5.

18. The overwhelming evidence on record makes it abundantly clear that the complainant booked a flat measuring 800 sq. ft.  at 3^rd floor at a consideration price of Rs.20,80,000/- (Rupees twenty lakh and eighty thousand only) in a multi-storied building constructed by the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4. The complainant and the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 entered into an agreement for sale on 19.05.2017 with respect to suit flat and the complainant paid a sum of Rs.04,16,000/- (Rupees four lakh and sixteen thousand only) out of total consideration amount of Rs.20,80,000/- (Rupees twenty lakh and eighty thousand only). The complainant promised to pay the balance consideration amount within the time specified in the agreement to make the payment of balance consideration amount the complainant made an application before the opposite party No. 5 Bank for granting a loan but the opposite party No. 5 informed that no loan can be sanctioned in favour of the complainant since there are discrepancies with regard to the documentation of the developers being the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4. The complainant requested the opposite parties to comply the requirements of the Bank but the opposite parties No. 1 to 4 did not comply with the said requirements of the Bank. The complainant’s loan could not be processed by the opposite party No. 5. As such, the complainant failed to pay the balance consideration amount within the agreed period.

19. To prove the case the complainant has produced a copy of money receipt dated 03.05.2017 and a copy of money receipt dated 16.05.2017 ( Annexure ‘A’ and ‘B’).

20. Annexure ‘C’ is the copy of agreement for sale dated 19.05.2017.

21. Annexure ‘D’ is the copy of letter dated 27.09.2017 issued by the opposite party No. 2.

22. Annexure ‘E’ is the copy of letter dated 07.11.2017 issued by the opposite party No. 5.

23. Annexure ‘F’ collectively are the copies of e-mail correspondences.

24. The evidence on affidavit filed by the complainant and the above noted documents clearly prove that the complainant booked a flat measuring 800 sq. ft. on 3^rd floor at a consideration of Rs.20,80,000/- (Rupees twenty lakh and eighty thousand only) in a multi-storied building constructed by the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4. It is also proved by evidence that the complainant and the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 entered into an agreement for sale on 19.05.2017 and the complainant paid a sum of Rs.04,16,000/- (Rupees four lakh and sixteen thousand only).

25. It is also proved by evidence that the complainant failed to make the balance consideration amount to the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 due to non granting of loan by the opposite party No. 5.

26. It is also proved by evidence that the complainant requested the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 for proper documentation of the documents as required by the opposite party No. 5. But the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 did not comply the requirements of the opposite party No. 5 Bank. As such, the complainant failed to make payment of the balance consideration amount.

27. On careful perusal of the record it appears to me that there is absolutely no contrary material to counter or rebut the claim made by the complainant. So, the complainant is entitled to get the refund of the money amounting to Rs.04,16,000/- (Rupees four lakh and sixteen thousand only).

28. Based on the above discussion, the complaint case filed by the complainant is allowed on contest against the opposite parties. The opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 are directed to refund the amount of Rs.04,16,000/- (Rupees four lakh and sixteen thousand only) to the complainant along with interest @9% per annum from the date of receipt till the date of payment. The opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 shall also pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as cost of litigation to the complainant. The order be complied with by the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the order.

29. If the opposite parties fail to comply with the direction made above within the period mentioned above then the complainant is at liberty to get the order implemented with due course of law.

30. The complaint case is, thus, disposed of accordingly.

31. Let a plain copy of the judgment be given to the complainant free of cost. A copy be also served upon the opposite parties by speed post / registered post with A/D as early as possible.