DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C.C. No. 132/2021
Date of Filing Date of Admission Date of Disposal
16.08.2021 22.09.2021 29.11.2023
Complainant/s:- | - SRI BIJNAN DEBNATH, S/o Sri Paresh Debnath
- SMT. TRIPTI DEBNATH (BISWAS), W/o Sri Bijnan Debnath
Both are residing at Vill.- Duttafulia, P.O – Duttafulia, P.S. Dhantala, Dist. Nadia, Pin – 741504. Presently at C/o Perfect Offset Printers at School Danga (Near Sukanta Statue), P.O. Bankura, District – Bankura, Pin – 722101, P.S. Bankura. -Vs- |
Opposite Party/s:- | - SPG ENTERPRISE, Represented by its proprietor Shyama Parasad Ghosh, S/o Late Ajit Kumar Ghosh, residing at Mayapally, Ichapore, P.O. – Ichapore – Nawabganj, Dist – North 24 Parganas, Pin – 743144, P.S. Noapara,
Presently at Debanjali Apartment, 3rd Floor, Kalitala, Ichapore, P.O. Nawabganj, Dist.-North 24 Parganas, Pin – 743144, P.S. Noapara. - SRI AROON CHOWDHURY, S/o Late Surendra Lal Chowdhury,
- SRI PIJUSH CHOWDHURY, S/o Late Surendra Lal Chowdhury,
- SRI MANISH KANTI CHOWDHURY, S/o Late Surendra Lal Chowdhury,
- SRI BIMAN CHOWDHURY, S/o Late Surendra Lal Chowdhury,
- SRI AMIT CHOWDHURY,
S/o Late Paritosh Chowdhury All 2 to 6 are residing at 50 (42), Harisava Road, Barrackpore, P.O. – Nona Chandanpukur, Dist. – North 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700122, P.S. – Titagarh. - SMT. SMRITI SEN
W/o Late Prakriti Ranjan Sen, residing at 26, Sukanta Sarani, Barrackpore, P.O. - Nona Chandanpukur, Dist. – North 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700122, P.S. – Titagarh. - SMT. DIPTI KANUNGO,
W/o Late Mihir Kanungo, residing at Nona Chandanpukur, Barrackpore, P.O. - Nona Chandanpukur, Dist. – North 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700122, P.S. – Titagarh. - SMT. PRITIKANA SENGUPTA,
W/o Hiralal Sengupta, residing at 44/10, East Talbagan Road, Barrackpore, P.O. - Nona Chandanpukur, Dist. – North 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700122, P.S. – Titagarh. - SMT. GOPA SEN
W/o Prodyut Sen, residing at R-1/A, Shyamali Housing State, P.O – Labony Estate, Kolkata – 700064, P.S. Bidhannagar North. - SMT. RUPALI SENGUPTA, W/o Bibhuti Sengupta, residing at 19, B.C. Bhar Road, (Bhal Kunda), Chandannagar, Dist. – Hooghly, Pin – 712136, P.S. Chandannagar.
|
P R E S E N T :- Sri. Daman Prosad Biswas……….President.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu…………………. Member.
JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER
Complainant above named filed this complaint against the aforesaid Opposite Party praying for direction to the O.P No. 1 to refund Rs. 3,85,000/- along with interest @18% p.a. from 11/07/2022 to till the date of realization, compensation amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-, cost of the case amounting to Rs. 14,000/- and other reliefs.
He alleged in the petition of complaint that on 16/06/2021 Complainants and Opposite Parties entered into an agreement relating to purchase of a flat mentioned in schedule ‘B’ with the consideration of Rs. 19,32,000/- and out of said amount Complainants have paid Rs. 3,85,000/- in favour of the O.Ps.
Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./
: : 2 : :
C.C. No. 132/2021
In the aforesaid agreement O.Ps were agreed to hand over the possession of the aforesaid flat within 24 months from the date of execution of the aforesaid agreement but they did not do the same. Thereafter Complainant sent a legal notice on 25/02/2020 to the O.Ps with a request to deliver the possession of the flat and to arrange for registration of deed but O.P No. 1 did not give any response.
Hence, the Complainant filed this case.
O.P No. 1 filed W/V and denied the entire allegations made in the petition of complaint. He further stated that aforesaid agreement is still in force and has not been cancelled by the Complainants till date so Complainants are not entitled to refund of the consideration money. He also alleged that aforesaid complaint is not entertainable in the eye of law and this commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the same.
O.P No. 5 also filed W/V and denied the entire allegations of the complaint and further contended that allegations are totally false and Complainant is not entitled to any relief.
TRIAL
During trial, Complainant No. 1 and 2 filed joint affidavit-in-chief. O.P No. 5 filed questionnaires and both the Complainants filed their reply. O.P No. 1 and 5 did not file any evidence.
DOCUMENTS
Complainant produced the following documents:-
- Agreement sale dated 16/06/2022…………xerox.
- Money receipt dated 16/06/2022………1 sheet Xerox.
- Money receipt dated 09/07/2012………1 sheet Xerox.
- Advocate’s Letter dated 25/02/2020…….3 sheets Xerox.
- Postal receipt with track report……..1 sheet Xerox.
BNA
Complainant filed BNA.
Decision with Reasons
Complainant filed this complaint against O.P No. 1-11.
On 03/11/2023 Complainant filed a petition praying for expunge the name of O.P No. 8-11 and that has been allowed. In the present case O.P No. 1-5 filed W/V. On perusal of record we find that Complainant filed Postal Receipt and Postal Track Report. On perusal of those documents we find that notice served upon O.P No. 2 on 28/10/2021, notice served upon O.P No. 3 on 28/10/2021, notice served upon O.P No. 4 on 30/10/2021 and notice served upon O.P No. 6 on 28/10/2021.
On perusal of record we find that paper publication has made in respect of O.P No. 2,3,4 and 6 but they did not turn up.
During hearing original copy of agreement of sale was produced and that has returned to the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant. On perusal of the said document we found that one agreement was made in between Complainants and Opposite Parties and as per the said agreement Opposite Parties were agreed to sale one flat specifically mentioned in the schedule ‘B’ of the complaint with the consideration of Rs. 19,32,000/- and Complainants have paid Rs. 3,85,000/- in favour of the O.P No. 1. They further alleged that as per the specified date of agreement and till date O.P No. 1 or other Opposite Parties not yet handed over the aforesaid flat in favour of the Complainants nor gave any reply to the Complainant. Complainant in support of his case filed affidavit-in-chief. O.P No. 5 filed questionnaires and Complainants gave answer.
On perusal of aforesaid evidence it is clear before us that aforesaid agreement was made in between the Complainants and the Opposite Parties and we do not fine any substantial material to disbelieve the said fact. It is also clear from the money receipt that Complainants had paid Rs. 3,85,000/- in favour of the O.P No. 1.
Contd. To Page No. 3 . . . ./
: : 3 : :
C.C. No. 132/2021
It is also clear before us that till date O.P No. 1 being the developer or and other O.Ps being the land owner did not hand over the aforesaid flat in favour of the Complainants not they returned the aforesaid amount in favour of the Complainants.
O.P No. 1 and 5 denied the allegations made in the petition of complaint but they by producing evidence failed to establish any reason as to why they did not hand over the aforesaid flat or did not refund the aforesaid money in favour of the Complainants.
On perusal of record we find that present Complainants are the consumer and Opposite Parties are the service provider.
Having regard to the aforesaid discussion it is clear before us that Complainants have able to established their grievance by sufficient documents beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly they are entitled to relief as per their prayer.
In the result, present case succeeds.
Hence ,
It is ordered,
That the present case vide no. C.C./132/2021 be and the same is allowed on contest against O.P No. 1 and 5 and dismissed ex-parte against the rests with cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by O.P No. 1-7 in favour of the Complainant. O.P No. 1-7 jointly or severally are directed to refund the aforesaid sum of Rs. 3,85,000/- along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of deposit of aforesaid money to till date of actual payment in favour of the Complainants.
O.P No. 1-7 are directed to comply the aforesaid direction within 45 days from this day. Failing which Complainants shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
Let a plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.
Dictated and Corrected by me
President
Member President
