DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS ,

AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144

                C.C. CASE NO. _219_ OF ___2015_

DATE OF FILING : 7.5.2015                       DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 04/04/2018

Present                      :   President       :  

                                        Member(s)    :    Jhunu Prasad  &  Subrata Sarker                                     

COMPLAINANT        : Sri Sanjib Saha, son of Radheshyam Saha of 1552, Mahendra Banerjee Road,  P.S Parnasree, Kolkata – 60.

-VERSUS  -

O.P/O.Ps                   :    1.  Samir Das, son of late Ramesh Chandra Das , C/O Sole Proprietor of G.P Construction ,having its registered office at 7/49, Mukundapur, P.S Purba Jadavpur, Kolkata – 99 and also residing at 132, Avenue South, Santoshpur, P.S Purba Jadavpur, Kolkata – 75

                                           2.   Sefali Sardar, wife of late Hrikesh Sardar of Kayal Para, Baruipur, P.S Baruipur, Kolkata – 144.

                                           3.    Bamni Naskar, wife of Kartick Naskar of Tetibere Mandir Bazaar, South 24-Parganas.

___________________________________________________________________

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

Jhunu  Prasad, Lady  Member              

Interference of this Forum has been sought for by the complainant contending gross negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in rendering necessary service towards the Complainant by the Opposite Parties

In epitome, the case of the complainant is that The O.P-3, being the land owner, authorized the O.P-1 to develop the land and to sell out the same by demarcation to the intending purchasers, for which a development agreement was executed between them on 10.6.2011.  O.P-1 is a land developer, with whom the complainant entered into an “Agreement for Sale” for purchasing a plot of land measuring about 2 cottahs under Mouza -Aatgahara, J.L. No.5, P.S Sonarpur, Dag. No.157, Khatian no.95/1, Dist. South 24-Parganas at a consideration of Rs.3 lacs which the complainant paid by a cheque and money receipt is filed.  But due to disputes and differences having arisen , the O.P-1 returns Rs.1 lac to the complainant and executed a document on his letter head stating that he will provide another land i.e the land of O.P-2, which he also failed to hand over to the complainant within the stipulated period. Several request has been made by the complainant and also F.I.R has been lodged before the Purba Jadavpur P.S against the Opposite Party No.1 to return the money or to hand over the plot yielded no result.

 Hence, this case, praying for delivery of khas possession and for execution and registration of the sale deed in respect thereof ,or to return Rs. 2 lacs , Compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/- towards litigation cost etc.

Issued notices to the Opposite Parties.

The O.P-1 contested the case by filing written version ,denying all the material allegations contending inter alia that the instant complaint is not maintainable and the case is bad for mis - joinder and non – joinder of necessary parties and the instant case is misconceived, frivolous, vexatious, malafide and baseless.

The Opposite Party stated that the complainant lodged a complaint before the Purba Jadavpur P.S. being case No 20/15, but after initiation of the said proceedings, the complainant and the present petitioner/OP.No.1 arrived into a settlement and subsequently the said case has been withdrawn. Only for harassing the Opposite party and for the purpose of extracting money from the Opposite party the complainant filed the instant case.

Hence the Opposite Party prays for dismissal of the complaint case.

            Despite service of the notices, the Opposite Party No.2 & 3 did not appear before the Forum to contest the case by filing written Version, so, the case is being heard ex-parte against the Opposite Party No.2 & 3.

POINTS FOR DECISION:-

 Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

DECISION WITH REASONS:-

At the time of argument the complainant and the Opposite Parties have filed affidavit –in- chief, BNA, and some Xerox copies of documents to support of their claim.

Admittedly one agreement has been executed by and between the complainant and the Opposite Party No. 1 to develop the land in all respect, after plotting the same sell the plots to the intending purchasers.

From the record and documents filed by the complainant, it is clearly evident that the complainant paid Rs.3,00,000/- to the Opposite Party for purchasing the plot as mentioned in the complaint.

It is also admitted that the Opposite Party No.1 returned the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-to  the complainant which has been paid by the complainant for purchasing the said  plot.

Fact remains that, in spite of receipt money of Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant the Opposite Party No.1 did not pay any heed to provide the developed plot of land to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency of service  on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 which comes within the per view of section 2(1)(g) of C.P. Act 1986 and therefore the opposite party no.1 either liable to provide the land to the complainant or refund the money of Rs.2,00,000/-.

Manifestly, it is found from the record, that the complainant did not file any Agreement which was executed with the complainant and the Opposite Party No.2 and 3 for purchasing a plot.  The Opposite Party No. 2 and 3 are the land owners who entered into an Agreement with the Opposite Party No.1 to sell out their plot by the Opposite Party No.1.  Therefore, there was no contract or relation between the complainant and the Opposite Party No.2 & 3 and that’s why the Opposite Party No. 2 and 3 are not liable to comply the order of the Forum.

Therefore, from the discussions made above, it is concluded that the complainant has successfully proved his case against the Opposite Party No.1. So, we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for and consequently the points for consideration are decided in affirmative.

In short, the complainant deserves success.

Hence,

                 it is,

                                             ORDERED

            That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party no. 1. with cost of Rs.5,000/-

            That the Opposite Party No.1 is directed to refund the money of Rs.2,00,000/- which has been paid by the complainant to the  OP. within one month from the date of this order in default the said sum of rupees 2 lacs will attract interest @8% p.a. for the default period.

            That the Opposite Party No.1 is also directed to pay  Rs.30,000/-as compensation to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.

That the Opposite Party No.1. is also directed to pay aforesaid litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.

Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied for.

                       Member                                                     Member                                          

Dictated and corrected by me

                                    Member

The judgment in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied for.

Member                                      Member                                        President