DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C.C. No. 331/2022
Date of Filing Date of Admission Date of Disposal
03.09.2022 21.10.2022 28.06.2023
Complainant/s:- | 1.Mrs. Malina Paul, W/o. Mr. Avhijit Majumder. 2.Mr. Avhijit Majumder,S/o. Late Haripada Majumder Both of them presently residing a Swasti Apartment, Holding No.44(2&) Banerjee Para Road, P.O. Nona Chandanpukur, P.S. Titagarh, Kolkata 700122, Dist- North 24 Parganas. = Vs= |
Opposite Party/s: | 1.S.S. Construction, C/o. Mr. Manish Ghosh (proprietor), 10/5, ‘H’ Road, Anandapuri, P.O. Nona Chandanpukur, P.S. Titagarh, Kolkata-122, Dist- North 24 Parganas. 2. Mr. Manash Ghosh, S/o. Late Tarak Nath Ghosh, Presently residing at C/o. Barun Roy, Near Amra Kojon Club, Subhaspally, P.O. Nona Chandanpukur, P.S. Titagarh, Kolkata-700122, Dist-North 24 Pgs. 3. Dr. Soumya Banerjee, S/o. Late Dipak Banerjee, 14(13), Desh Bandhu Pally, P.O. Nona Chandanpukur, P.S. Titagarh, Kolkata-700122, Dist- North 24 Pgs. |
P R E S E N T :- Smt. Manisha Shaw……………Member.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu………………. Member.
The complainant filed a complaint case u/s- 35(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The brief facts of the case is complainant made an agreement for sale with opposite parties for purchase a flat being No.2B having super built up area of 800 Sq. ft little more or less situated at second floor of a multi storied building having undivided proportionate share in Mouza-Nona, L.R Dag No.761, LR Khatian 9408, within the limit of ward No.4 of Barrackpore Municipality, holding No. 14(13), Desh Bandhu Pally, P.O. Nona Chandanpukur, P.S. Titagarh, Kolkata-700122, Dist- North 24 Parganas, with a consideration of Rs.15,20,000/-. The complainant paid Rs. 10,50,000/- to O.P. No.1 and 2 during construction of flat on several dates through Bank Transaction and the O.P. No.2 acknowledged the same. In the last week of August, 2021 when complainant went for physical verification of flat at that time it revealed that the measurement was 650 Sq.ft instead of 800 Sq.ft.super built up area. The complainant realized that it would not serve their actual requirement which the complainant booked. Complainant raised objection
Contd/-2
C.C. No. 331/2022
:: 2 ::
regarding said shortfall of measurement. O.P. No.2 advised the complainant for make a written representation for cancellation of booking/ agreement dated 14.04.2021 and to enable the O.P to sell / transfer the said flat to any third party. The complainant do the same as advised by O.P. No.2. Thereafter O.P sold the said flat to third party being Deed No. 1379/22 for Rs. 14,00,000/ O.P issued cheques on several dates to the complainant but all cheques were dishonoured. Lastly O.P paid Rs. 50,000/- on 02.02.2022 and Rs. 10,000/- on 13.04.2022 through net Banking but thereafter the balance amount was not paid. Demand notice was served upon O.P on 12.09.2022 but in vain. Compelling circumstances complainant filed this case for refused the balance amount of Rs. 9,90,000/-. Notices were sent to opposite parties. In spite of receiving notice from this commission the opposite parties did not feel any urge to appear before this commission within statutory period. Hence, the case heard exparte. The case is within the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction of this commission.
Issue raised for deliver of Judgment
- Whether the case is maintainable or not?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or reliefs or not?
Reasons for Judgment
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as nature and character of the case all the points are interlinked with each other as such all the points are taken up together. The complainant paid advanced money of Rs. 10,50,000/- for purchase said flat out of total consideration money of Rs. 15,20,000/- for 800 Sq.ft of flat. One agreement for sale was made between the complainant and O.P(s) on 14th April, 2021 for 800 Sq.ft super built up area at the said holding and dag Nos. which is also described in ‘Second’ schedule of the said agreement for sale Deed. At the time of inspection of the flat by the complainant it was found that the O.P made 650 Sq. ft super built up area instead of 800 Sq. ft. The constructed area would not serve the requirement of the complainant. Here, as complainant paid the advanced money for purchase the flat and O.P. made agreement for sale therefore the complainant is a consumer as per Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the opposite parties are liable to hand over exact flat area which they agreed in agreement for sale but in the instant case opposite parties did not provide their service as agreed, which will be treated as deficiency of service. In the instant case opposite parties agreed to construct 800 Sq.ft but the O.P constructed 650 Sq.ft instead of 800 Sq.ft which would be treated as deficiency of service. It is the choice of the purchaser whether he will purchase or not when any of the parties deviated from his/ her promise. Opposite parties sold out the said flat i.e. suit property to third party but not yet refund the entire advance received by the opposite parties.
Contd/-3
C.C. No. 331/2022
:: 3 ::
Hence,
it is ordered,
that the case being No. C.C. 331/2022 be and the same is allowed exparte.
It is hereby directed the opposite parties to refund Rs. 9,90,000/-to the complainant with 9% interest p.a. from the date of receipt of the money till recovery with Rs. 20,000/- for litigation cost within two months from the date of this judgment.
Failing which the complainant has liberty to file execution case as per law.
Let the pain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.
Dictated and Corrected by me.
Member
Member Member
