West Bengal

Howrah

CC/154/2022

SRI BEJOY CHANDRA CHANDRA, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Amit Dey Sarkar, - Opp.Party(s)

Souvik Chatterjee, Sampa Ghosh

02 Jul 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HOWRAH
20, Round Tank Lane, P.O. and P.S. Howrah, Dist. Howrah-711 101.
Office (033) 2638 0892, 0512 Confonet (033) 2638 0512 Fax (033) 2638 0892
 
Complaint Case No. CC/154/2022
( Date of Filing : 14 Jun 2022 )
 
1. SRI BEJOY CHANDRA CHANDRA,
S/O late Anukul Chandra Chandra, Residing at 9/2/2, Nepal Saha Lane, Howrah West Bengal 711 101
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Sri Amit Dey Sarkar,
S/O Satinath Dey Sarkar, Residing at 70/2, Tanti para Lane, Howrah, W.B. 711 104
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Debasish Bandyopadhyay PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Dhiraj Kumar Dey MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Minakshi Chakraborty MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 02 Jul 2024
Final Order / Judgement

Presented by:

Minakshi Chakraborty,  Presiding Member

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE :

This instant case has been filed by the complainants under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. As per submission of the complainant, the OP is a contractor, who was contracted by Agreement dated 12/01/2021 for building a two storied building. As per submission of the complainant he gave money for ground floor to the O.p. @Rs.1,250/- per sq.ft and for First Floor @Rs.1,300/- per Sq.ft. The O.p. as per Agreement they assurance that the whole building will be completed within 6 months from the date of foundation. Accordingly to the Agreement for Sale the foundation started on 3rd March, 2021 so building should have completed within September, 2021 but till date the building is unfinished condition. According to the complainant several communications were made by and between the parties but no step has been taken by the O.p./contractor and the building was left in unfinished, inhabitable condition for which complainant had to finish come of the work because the complainant was staying in a temporary accommodation. The complainant had already paid Rs.15,70,000/- to the O.p. and as no endeavour has been made by the O.p. to finish the two storied building complainant is compelled to file the instant complaint case with a prayer for refund of Rs.15,70,000/- alongwith compensation and litigation cost.

Evidence on record

The complainant filed evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument which are nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition.

Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the parties

Complainant has filed separate written notes of argument. As per BNA., evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument shall have to be taken into consideration for disposal of the case.

Heard argument of the complainant side at length. In course of argument ld. Lawyer for the complainant has given emphasis on evidence and documents produced by them.

From the discussion hereinabove, we find the following issues/points for consideration.

Issues/points for consideration

  1. Whether the complainant is the consumer?
  2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the case?
  3. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
  4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief?

DECISION WITH REASONS

Issue no.1:

The pertinent question herein lies whether the petitioner is a consumer?

In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.The point is thus answered in the affirmative.

Issue no.2:

                 Both the complainants and the opposite parties are residents/having their office addresses within the district of Howrah and the claims do not exceed the pecuniary limit of this commission. This point is thus disposed of accordingly.

Issue nos. 3 & 4:

Prior to discuss of these two issues let it be made clear that the case is running ex-parte against the O.p. vide order no.7 dated 05/01/2023.

Both the issues are taken up simultaneously for the sake of convenience.

Specific case of the petitioner is that he has already paid an amount of Rs.15,70,000/- to the O.p. towards consideration for building a two storied building and for which an Agreement dated 12/01/2021 was entered by the complainant and the O.p. which is annexed with the present complaint case and where from it appears that the complainant paid the amount on various dates and the O.p. acknowledges the same by putting his signature alongwith date. Certain clauses were written in the said Agreement dated 12/01/2021 wherefrom it is evident that in the Agreement it is clearly written that the O.p. will complete the entire work within 6 months from the date of foundation of the said two storied building. The complainant has annexed the money receipts issued by the O.p. to show the bonafideness of the complainant that he wants to make the work done by the O.p. One letter has been annexed by the complainant wherefrom it is evident that the complainant sent the letter dated 28/04/2022 to the O.p. stating that in spite of lapse of the said 6 months till date the work has not been completed by the O.p. for which the complainant requested the O.p. to complete the work within 15 days from the receipt of the said letter otherwise he would be compelled to take recourse to law. In spite of receiving letter O.p. never showed his initiative to make the work done within the stipulated period of time nor within the grace period as has been provided by the complainant and in spite of repeated request O.p. never paid any heed to the request of the complainant. As the case is running ex-parte against the O.p. and no documents have been filed on behalf of the O.p. rather complainant has submitted the documents like the Agreement, the money receipt and the letter he has sent to the O.p., this commission holds that the complainant is successful in making out a case in his favour.

Both the issues are disposed of.

Hence,            

                                                  O R D E R E D

That the Complaint Case No.154 of 2022 be and the same is decreed ex-parte against the O.p.

The complainant do get refund of Rs.15,70,000/- alongwith interest to the tune of @9% per annum from the date of institution of this case till realization from the O.p. within 45 days from date.

The complainants do further get Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment and agony and Rs.20,000/- towards litigation cost from the O.p. within 45 days from date.

In case, the O.p. does not comply the award passed by this Commission within stipulated period, the complainant is at liberty to take recourse of law.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will be available in the following website The word file is drafted and corrected by me.

 

(Minakshi Chakraborty)

                  Member

        D.C.D.R.C., Howrah

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Debasish Bandyopadhyay]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Dhiraj Kumar Dey]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Minakshi Chakraborty]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.