Ld. Advocate(s)
For Complainant: Prodip Banerjee
For OP/OPs : None
Date of filing of the case :28.12.2023
Date of Disposal of the case :29.08.2024
Final Order / Judgment dtd.29.08.2024
The concise fact of the case of the complainant is that the complainants Khokan Joardar & Barnali Joardar applied for 2BHK flat vide application no. 403032 to the Developer Simoco System and Infrastructure Solution Limited OP No.1. One lottery was held on 15.07.2014 and the complainants Khokan Joardar and Barnali Joardar were allotted 2BHK flat in SANHITA Project of OP company at flat no. 2D, 2nd floor Block 2B 12 having super built-up area of 734 Sq. Ft. approx .The parties entered into a sale agreement on 29.06.2015. The OP issued confirmation letter to the complainants on 06.11.2014. The complainants paid a total sum of Rs.1125058/- to the OP on different dates from 28.08.2015 to 17.08.2023 as per the para 2 of the complaint. Thereafter, the complainants also paid money and he paid total Rs.1428804/- but the OP failed to hand over the said flat to the complainant as per the agreement dated 29.06.2015. The complainants visited the office of the OP several times and demanded to hand over the said flat to the complainant but to no effect. The complainants lastly sent a cheque bearing no. 168348 dated 14.08.2023 in favour of the OP. Due to not to handing over the said flat the complainants suffered loss and mental pain and agony for a sum of Rs.1428804/- and other amounts. The complainants claimed that the cause of action arose on 17.04.2014 and lastly on 17.08.2023 when the last cheque was encashed by OP. The complainants prayed for an award for a sum of Rs.1428804/-, Rs.30,00,000/- towards harassment mental pain and suffering and litigation cost.
Initially, the OP appeared in this case but subsequently, did not contest the case . Accordingly, the case is decided to be heard ex-parte against the OP as per the order no. 8 dated 03.07.2024.
The complainants in order substantiate the case adduced evidence in the form of affidavit in chief . The complainants also proved some documents :-
Annexure-A:- Is the copy of agreement between the complainants Khokan Joardar and Barnali Joardar and the OP Simoco System and Infrastructure Solution Limited dated 29.06.2015.
Annexure-B:- Is the confirmation of allotment letter dated 06.12.2014 issued by SANHITA to the complainants Khokan Joardar part of annexure-B is the different copies of document showing payment of money by the complainants to the Ops different dates.
Annexure-C:- Is the copy of banking transaction between the complainants and the OP.
Annexure-D:- Is the copy of postal receipt along with copy of cheque for Rs.3739/-.
The complainants in their evidence categorically stated that the complainants paid a total sum of Rs.1428804/- to the OP for purchasing of the said flat.
The OP in their W/V stated that the complainant is a customer of the OP and the OP entered into an agreement for sale of flat of the OP on 29.06.2015 and the OP will deliver the flat within 36 months with a grace period of 6 months from the date of allotment subject to payment of total consideration.
It is the settled position of law that admitted facts need not be proved. However, the complainants by filing affidavit in chief categorically stated about the payment of the aforesaid money of the OP. The date of agreement is on 29.06.2015. Even after expiry of the grace period of 6 months and further 180 days , it is found that the OP failed to deliver the said flat within the statutory period as per the agreement. There is nothing to show that the complainants did not pay consideration money. The OP could not adduce any evidence to establish that the complainants failed to pay the consideration money for the schedule flat.
The complaints duly proved that he paid the consideration money for purchasing the flat but as per the evidence available in the case record the OP failed to deliver the said flat within the time limit as agreed by the parties.
Thus having assessed the entire oral and documentary evidence the Commission comes to the finding that the complainants successfully proved the case against the OP ex-parte. The entire evidence of the OP stands unchallenged and undiscarded in as much as the case is heard ex-parte .
In the backdrop of the aforesaid discussion and observation made hereinabove the Commission comes to the finding that the case against the complainant stands duly proved upto the hilt.
Accordingly, the complaint case succeeds ex-parte against the OP with cost.
Hence,
It is
Ordered
that the complaint case no. CC/123/2023 be and the same is allowed ex-parte against OP with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand). The complainant Khokan Joardar and Barnali Joardar do get an award against the OP Simoco System and Infrastructure Solution Limited for Rs.1428804/- (Rupees fourteen lakh twenty eight thousand eight hundred four) together with interest @12% p.a form the date of payment till the date of its realisation. , Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) towards harassment , mental pain and agony and unfair trade practice and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) towards litigation cost. The OP Simoco System andInfrastructure Solution Limited is directed to pay Rs.15,38,804/- (Rupees fifteen lakh thirty eight thousand eight hundred four) to the complainants within 30 days from the date of passing the final award failing which the entire award money shall carry an interest @12% p.a from the date of passing the final order till the date of its realiation.
All interim application (I.A) stands disposed of accordingly.
D.A. to note in the trial register.
The case is accordingly disposed of.
Let a copy of this final order be supplied to both the parties as free of costs.
Dictated & corrected by me
............................................
PRESIDENT
(SHRI HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY,)
................ ..........................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY,)
I concur,
........................................
MEMBER
( Shri NIROD BARAN ROY CHOWDHURY)
