Date of filing: 13/11/2019

Judgment date: 04/08/2023

Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President

This complaint is filed by Smt. Swati Banerjee (Chatterjee) under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (referred as OPs hereinafter) namely SRAB REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD. being represented by its directors (1) Sk. Asgar Ali and (2) Sk. Ayub Ali, alleging deficiency in service on their part.

Case of the complainant in short is that OP was engaged in land development and real estate business. The father of the complainant came to know that the OP being the owners had decided to promote and develop the project namely “Sampriti Park Project”. So he approached the OP to purchase a plot of land and on 29/04/2014 paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the OP by an account payee cheque as booking money. Complainant further paid sum of Rs. 35,000/- on 15/09/2014 by an account payee cheque and also had paid balance amount of Rs. 1,20,000/-. So the total consideration money of Rs. 1,60,000/- was paid by the complainant towards the purchase of the said plot being plot no. 1523. An agreement for sale dated 18/02/2016 was also executed between the parties. But the OP failed to handover the plot of land after its development. The OP had promised to develop the plot by providing the drainage, water supply, electricity, connecting roads to the main road on or before 31/12/2017. But the same was not done. So a notice was sent by the complainant to the OPs but the OPs paid no need. So the present complaint has been filed praying for directing the OP to complete the demarcation and handover the possession of plot of land to the complainant after completing the drain, road, electric supply, otherwise to take back the said plot of land from the complainant by paying the current price i.e. Rs. 1,40,000/- per cottah, to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for delay in developing the plot, to pay Rs. 30,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and Rs. 20,000/- for litigation cost.

Director representing the OP Company namely Asgar Ali contested this case by filing written version denying and disputing the allegations in the complaint. It is also contended that Ayub Ali being the director described as OP 2 had already resigned long ago and his resignation was duly accepted by the company.

OP 2 Ayub Ali has also filed written version contending only that he had resigned from the company long ago.

During the course of trial complainant filed examination in chief on affidavit but in spite of repeated opportunities given to the OPs, no questionnaire was filed by them. They neither filed any evidence. It appears from the record that since after filing of the written version, OPs did not take any step. So ultimately argument of the complainant has been heard.

The only point requires to be determined in this case is whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

At the very outset it may be pertinent to point out that a petition was filed on behalf of the OP 2 praying to expunge his name on the ground that he had resigned from the company long back and so he was not liable. Said petition was disposed of vide order dated 29/09/2020 rejecting the prayer of the OP 2 to expunge his name observing thereby that at the time of payment of booking amount by the complainant towards the purchase of the plot, OP 2 was a director of OP Company. Since said order has not been challenged before any higher forum, it has reached its finality.

In support of his claim, complainant has filed the agreement for sale entered into between the parties on 18/02/2016 wherefrom it is evident that the entire consideration price of Rs. 1,60,000/- was paid by the complainant towards the purchase of the plot being no. 1523 in the project to be developed by the OPs namely “Sampriti Park Project”. It is also evident from the agreement for sale that the OPs had promised to handover the plot and complete the development of the project on or before 31/12/2017. The OPs in the written version have neither disputed the execution of agreement for sale nor have disputed the payment of entire consideration price of Rs. 1,60,000/- by the complainant. It is also not their case that the project was completed within the stipulated period. In such a situation since the plot has not been handed over by the OPs as per agreement dated 18/02/2016, complainant is entitled to the direction upon the OPs to complete the development of the project as per the said agreement for sale and to handover the possession. However it may be mentioned here that the complainant has only asked for delivery of the possession of the plot. So far as relief of directing the OP to take back the said plot of land and to pay the current price @ Rs. 1,40,000/- per cottah, no document in support of such claim has been filed by the complainant. So in the absence of any document regarding the current market price of the said plot, there cannot be any direction to pay the current price as prayed by the complainant. However in failure to deliver the possession of the plot as per agreement by the OPs, complainant is entitled to refund of the sum paid by him along with compensation for delay in delivering possession and for harassment.  

Hence

           ORDERED

CC/575/2019 is allowed on contest. OPs are directed to deliver the possession of the plot of land as per agreement dated 18/02/2016 within two months from this date. They are further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 30,000/- within the aforesaid period of two months.

In alternatively if the OPs fails to deliver the possession of the plot as per agreement dated 18/02/2016, they shall refund the sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- paid by the complainant along with compensation of Rs. 30,000/- within the aforesaid period of two months. OPs are further directed to pay litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- within the aforesaid period of two months.

In failure to pay the sum, same shall carry interest @ 7% p.a. till realisation.