FINAL ORDER

Debi Sengupta,Member.

The case of the complainant in a nutshell is that the opposite party being the developer started raising multistoried construction as per Municipal Sanctioned Plan in the scheduled property consisting of several shops, garage in the ground floor and residential flat on the upper floor.  The O.P. published the matter through different sources and being allured by such offer, the complainant in need of garage space contacted with the O.P. and the O.P. promised the complainant to provide a garage measuring 16 feet X 10 feet in the ground floor at the north eastern corner of the aforesaid building and on the very date i.e. on 31.7.2015 the opposite party took a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards advance money and granted receipt in favour of the complainant.  The complainant states that thereafter the opposite party received further sum of Rs.1,26,000/- from the complainant  on several installment and also received Rs.6000/- on 7.2.2016 and 12.3.2016 and in the last receipt of installment it has been mentioned that the O.P. is taking money for allotment of garage of size 16 X 10 feet in the ground of the holding No.58/D/1, J.N.Lahiri Road within the proposed multi storied building.  The complainant stated and alleged that the O.P. has taken money of Rs.1,76,000/- from the complainant but inspite of regular demand for making an agreement, the opposite party did not give any heed to the request of the complainant.  So, it is nothing but tantamount to illegal trade practice on the part of the opposite party. 

            The complainant further states that the O.P. received Rs.50,000/- on 31.7.2015 and since then two years already been elapsed the O.P. did not delivered the possession of said garage in favour of the complainant.  Being puzzled the complainant compelled to sent a legal notice on 17.5.2017 through his Ld. Advocate through registered post with A/D requesting the opposite party to execute and registered appropriate deed in favour of the complainant.  But inspite of receiving the said notice the O.P. did not arrange to execute the deed not given possession to the complainant.  From the conduct of the O.P. it reveals that O.P. is utmost reluctant to execute the deed in favour of the complainant.   The complainant has stated that it is crystal clear that the O.P. has made illegal trade practice and caused deficiency of service inspite of receiving a sum of Rs.1,76,000/- and did not try to give possession of the garage in question in favour of the complainant.  Thus the act of the opposite tantamount to gross negligence and due to such act of the opposite party the complainant being the bonafide consumer is entitled to get relief as prayed for.

            The complainant further stated that he has tried his level best to settle the dispute but the O.P. did not pay any heed and finding no other alternative the complainant has filed the instant case for redress.  The complainant prayed before the Ld. Forum directing the O.P. to hand over the schedule garage room in favour of the complainant and to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the complainant after taking the balance sum of Rs.88,000/- or in default refund the sum of Rs.1,76,000/- along with banking interest.  The complainant also prays directing the O.P. to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for harassment and severe mental pain and agony and also pay Rs.20,000/- for litigation cost.

            O.P. appeared and contested the case by filing Vokalatnama and thereafter the O.P. took four date for filing written version and stipulated period of filing written version is over and exparte order passed against the O.P.  The O.P. did not turn up.  Hence, the case is fixed for exparte hearing.

            It is hold that the complainant have proved the deficiency of service against the O.P.    In this connection to prove this case some documents have been filed by the complainant such as affidavit of evidence, brief notes of argument.  The complainant also filed the letterdated7.6.2016 addressing the officer-in-charge of Serampore Police Station through the S.P., Hooghly and S.D.P.O. Serampore, Advocate’s notice and money receipt all are original.                   

From the above documents it is transpires that in this case the O.P. though appeared but did not file written version.  In the complaint case as per material is proved has not been challenged by the O.P.  The uncontested testimonial of complainant proves the case of the complainant.  Thus the case succeeds exparte as such the complainant do get the relief as prayed for. There is nothing to disbelieve the complaint of the complainant.  Hence, it is

Ordered

that the complaint case be and the same is allowed on exparte against the opposite party with litigation cost of Rs.5000/-.

The O.P. is directed to hand over the possession of the schedule mentioned garage room in favour of the complainant and to execute and register the deed of conveyance in his favour after taking balance consideration money of Rs.88,000/- or in default refund the sum of Rs.1,76,000/- taken as advance by the O.P. along with interest @ Rs.8% p.a.   The O.P. is further directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.30,000/- for mental pain and agony of this complainant.  All the payments are to be made within 45 days from the date of this order.  At the event of failure to comply with the order the O.P. shall pay cost of Rs.50/- for each days delay, if caused on expiry of aforesaid 45 days by depositing the amount in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the complainant free of cost.

Dictated and corrected by me.  D. Sengupta, Member, CDRF, Hooghly.