Judgment : Dt.18.1.2018
Shri S. K. Verma, President
This is a complaint made by one Shri Shiv Prasad Subba, son of Shri Amar Subba, residing at 6F/GR, Tottie Lane, P.S.-New Market, Kolkata-700 016 and Miss Nilanjana Maity, d/o Shri Sarat Kumar Maity, residing at 10/1/1/1, Nandalal Mukherjee Lane, P.O.-Santragacni, P.S.-Shibpur, PIN-711 104 against Sri Amit Sapui, s/o Shri Ram Prasad Sapui, residing at 27/1R, M.N.Sen Lane, P.S.-Regent Park, Kolkata-700 040, Developer/Contractor, as well as the appointed and nominated Register Attorney of the “VENDOR” Sri Gobinda Mondal, s/o Late Binode Mondal residing at 42, Khanpur Sahidnagar Colony, P.S.-Netaji Nagar,Kolkata-700 047, OP No.1, Gobinda Mondal, s/o Late Binode Mondal residing at 42, Khanpur Sahidnagar Colony, P.S.-Netaji Nagar,Kolkata-700 047, OP No.2 praying for a direction upon the O.P. to return the earnest money of Rs.2,70,000/- due to breach of contract for handing over the flat in habitable condition and compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost.
Facts in brief are that Complainants are purchasers of one flat measuring about 440 sq.ft. of super built area consisting of one bed room, one living cum dining cum kitchen, one toilet, one balcony and proportionate share of land. OP is the lawfully attorney of vendor Sri Gobinda Mondal. OP executed an agreement for sale on 26.8.2015 with the Complainants to transfer the said flat by virtue of a registered deed of conveyance on behalf of the vendor. Complainants agreed to purchase the said flat for a consideration of Rs.9,00,000/-. It was agreed that the flat will be finished as per specification of the 3rd schedule of the agreement and possession will be handed over to the purchaser within twelve months. Within the stipulated period, Complainant paid the money to the tune of Rs.2,70,000/-. However, Complainant found that the construction work did not take place. So, Complainant asked for refund of the money. But the OPs did not oblige. So, Complainant filed this case.d
OPs did not contest the case by filing written version and so the case is heard ex-parte.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed a petition praying for treating the complaint petition as affidavit-in-chief and the prayer was allowed.
Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
In this regard, a copy of the agreement is filed. Receipts showing the payment of money by the Complainant to the OPs have also been filed, which reveal that Complainant paid Rs.2,70,000/ - to the OPs. The allegations made by Complainants remained unrebutted and unchallenged. So, the Complainant is entitled to the relief for refund of Rs.2,70,000/-. Further Complainant has prayed for compensation and litigation cost. Since the payment was made by the Complainant to the tune of Rs.2,70,000/-, Complainant appears to be entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.
Hence,
ordered
CC/136/2017 and the same is allowed ex-parte in part against OP No.1 and dismissed against OP No.2. OP No.1 is directed to pay Rs.2,70,000/- to the Complainants within three months of this order. In addition, OP No.1 is directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost within that period, in default the total amount of Rs.2,95,000/- shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of this order till realization.
