THE PRESIDENT

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE No. CC- 16 of 2021

 

Sri Sri Pranjal Nag,

S/o- Sri Pradyot Mohan Nag,

C/O-  B. K. Roy,

67 Gangail Road,

P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,

West Tripura, Pin- 799001. ...….................Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

1. Smt. Nibedita Baidya,

W/O- Sri Samaresh Baidya,

C/O-Sri Subrata Bhattacharjya,

Krishnanagar, Near Magnet Club,

P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Tripura 

West Tripura, 799001.

 

2. Sri Pankaj Debnath,

S/O- Late Priya Lal Debnath,

Jaynagar, Vivekananda Lane,

Opposite of JPC Club,

P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,

West Tripura, Pin-799001. …...................Opposite Parties.

 

 

     __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

Dr (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA,

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Bimal Kanti Nag,

Learned Advocate.

    

For the O.P.  : Ex-parte

  

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON :  25.02.2022

 

 

J U D G M E N T

The Complainants' case in short is that both the O.Ps had executed a registered development Agreement vide registered Deed No. -I- 9635, dated 28.10.2016, being represented as the developer and the land owner, for construction of multi storied building with the cost and expenditure of the developer herein the O.P. No.1, on the land of 0.0798 Acres of the land owner(O.P. No.2), appertaining to Khatian no.1530, C.S.(Sabek) plot no. P.B. 335- 4175/46538, 4176/46540, R.S.(hal)plot No. 1722/2942 and khatian No.1582, C.S.(Sabek) plot No. P.B. 335, 370-4175/ 46538, 4176/46540, R.S.(hal) plot No.1722/3001, lying and situated under Mouza Agartala Sheet No.5, Tehshil- Bardwali, Revenue Circle- Agartala, West Tripura. It is stated in the complaint petition that the O.P. No.2 had also appointed the developer(O.P.No.1) as his constituted attorney with the power for execution of agreement for sale, Sale Deed for developer's share in the said multi storied building inter alia for official communications vide registered General Power of Attorney Deed No. IV-506 dated 28.10.2016.  The O.P. no.1 had offered to the complainant for sale of one Unit of Flat along with car parking area and the complainant had accepted the offer of the O.P. no.1 and agreed for purchase of the 2 BHK Flat, at the north Eastern side of the first floor, measuring carpet area 540 square feet along with a car parking space, on the ground floor, measuring 120 square feet, in multi storied building to be constructed on the land of owner Pankaj Debnath, O.P. No.2, appertaining to khatian No. 1530 & 1582, R.S. (hal) Plot no.1722/ 2942, 1722/ 3001, lying and situated under Mouza - Agartala sheet no. 5, Tehshil Bardwali, revenue Circle- Agartala, Sub-Division-Sadar, West Tripura District for total consideration of Rs.18,70,000/-. Both the O.P. No.1 and the complainant had executed the 'Agreement for Sale'  vide no. 214/FEB/17 dated 19th February 2017 before the Notary Public, Agartala West Tripura with terms and conditions as specified in the said agreement for sale. It is clearly mentioned in the agreement that the said flat will be completed and handed over to the purchaser that is the complainant within 22 months from the date of execution of the said agreement.  On the date of agreement the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.3,74,000/- through online money transfer on 22.02.2017, from the bank account of the complainant of Tripura Gramin Bank, Madhupur Branch, as an advance booking amount.  Thereafter on 29th July 2017 the complainant again paid another installment of Rs.2,00,000/-  through online money transfer from the same bank and branch. The O.P. No.1 also admitted & acknowledged the receipt of the said total amount of Rs.5,74,000/- paid by the complainant. In the month of November 2017 when the complainant visited the site  of the construction it was found that the O.P. No.1 even did not complete the piling works of the building and the works had been left abandoned. On 2nd December 2017 complainant communicated with the O.P. No.1 to know the reason for stopping of construction works of the building but the O.P. denied to disclose anything to the complainant. And informed that the O.P. will not construct the said building and will refund the advance amount of Rs.5,74,000/- paid by the complainant along with interest @ 9%  to the complainant. But the O.P. did not refund any single penny but communicated vide letter dated 05.04.2018 offering the complainant if the complainant desires to cancel the  Agreement for Sale it shall be informed to the developer, O.P. No.1. In response to the said letter the complainant had cancelled the referred agreement for sale vide letter dated 11.04.2018  and requested the O.P. No.1 to refund the total amount of Rs.5,74,000/-. Accordingly the O.P. No.1 also accepted the cancellation and asked the complainant to provide the bank details of the complainant for payment of all the total amount of Rs.5,74,000/- along with interest @ 9% .  But even after sending of bank details  in time, till the filing of this instant complaint petition before this Commission, the  O.P. No.1 did not pay any amount to the complainant. The complainant had served Advocate Notice  dated 12th January, 2021 upon the O.P. No.1 for refund of the entire amount of Rs.5,74,000/- but the O.P. No.1 did not respond to the notice. Finding no other alternative the complainant filed this complaint before this Commission claiming refund of the amount for harassment and mental agony along with litigation cost amounting to Rs.6,44,000/-.   

2. After getting notice from this commission the O.P. did not file written statement. Hence the case proceeded exparte against the O.P. vide order dated 19.07.2021. 

3. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE COMPLAINANT:-

The complainant submitted his examination in chief on affidavit as P.W. Also submitted 09 documents vide firsiti dated 20.08.2021 which are marked as Exhibit -1 Series.  

4. POINTS TO BE DETERMINED: - 

(i) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps?

  (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation/ relief as prayed for?

 

5. DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF:-  

We have heard arguments from the complainant side.   We have gone through the complaint and the evidence adduced by way of affidavit by the complainant as well as the documentary evidence produced by the complainant. We are satisfied that the complainant had entered into an agreement with the O.Ps  through   'Agreement for Sale' vide no. 214/FEB/17 dated 19th February 2017 before the Notary Public, Agartala West Tripura with terms and conditions as specified in the said agreement for sale. And complainant paid an amount of Rs.5,74,000/- in total as per agreement. The said flat is supposed to hand over to the complainant within 22 months from the date of execution of the said agreement. But we find that till filing of the complaint the O.P. No.1 did nothing for initiating the construction work. A number of correspondences were made between the complainant and the O.Ps. The O.P. informed the complainant that the O.P. will not construct the said building and will refund the advance amount of Rs.5,74,000/ with 9% interest. But we find that till filing of the complaint the O.Ps did not keep their promise. We further find that the complainant became victim at the hands of the O.P No.1. According to us O.P. No.1 has indulged an unfair trade practice. The complainant has suffered mental agony, and harassment on account of the unfair trade practice indulged in by the O.Ps.

6. In view of the discussion made above we find and hold that the complainant has succeeded in establishing the case U/S 35 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. We accordingly find that the O.P No.1 is guilty of committing unfair trade practice against the complainant and also deficiency of service.

7. It is hereby directed that the O.P. No.1 shall return Rs.5,74,000/-  being the amount of advance that had been paid by the complainant for booking of the flat as per agreement arrived at between the complainant and the O.P. No.1. The amount of Rs.5,74,000/- shall carry interest @ 9% P.A. from 29.07.2017(date of deposit made by the complainant as advance) till the payment is made. 

The O.P. No.1 shall also pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant for causing mental agony and harassment together with Rs.5,000/- being the cost of the litigation. Thus, O.Ps shall have to pay Rs. 5,99,000/-, (Rs.5,74,000/- + Rs.20,000/- + Rs.5,000/-) additional 9% interest on Rs.5,74,000/- till the payment is made to the complainant within a period of 2 months from the date of judgment failing which the amount of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.5,000/- as awarded above shall carry interest @ 9% P.A., till the payment is made in full. Supply copy of this judgment to both the parties free of costs.

 

Announced.

 

 

SRI R. PAL

PRESIDENT, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

 

Dr (SMT) B. PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA,

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.