THE PRESIDENT

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

CASE No. CC- 67 of 2020

 

Dr. Swanirbhar Majumder,

S/o- Sri Swapan Majumder,

Residence of Rabindra Lane,

West Joy Nagar, P.O. Agartala-799001,

P.S. West Agartala, District- West Tripura  ..….................Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

1. Sri Monoj Das,

S/O- Late Mahindra Chandra Das,

 

2. Smt./ Bijali Das(Roy Choudhury),

W/O- Late Manindra Chandra Das,

Ker Choumuhani, T.G. Road,

P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, 799001. 

District- West Tripura.

 

3. Sri Dipak Roy,

S/O- Late Khirode Chandra Roy,

Shantinagar, Teliamura,

P.S. Teliamura, District- Khowai,

Tripura, Pin- 799205.

 

4. Smt. Moushumi Datta,

W/O- Sri Ranjan Datta,

D/O- Late Mnindra Chandra Das,

Residence of Milan Sangha, Bordwali,

A.D. Nagar, Agartala, Tripura West,

Pin-799003. ….…...................Opposite Parties.

 

     __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

Dr (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA,

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Sukanta Paul,

Learned Advocate.

    

For the O.Ps : Ex-parte.

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON :  30.03.2022

 

J U D G M E N T

The Complainants' case in short is that he is an Assistant professor of Tripura University, Suriyamaninagar and he along with his family members were interested to purchase a ownership flat at Agartala. That the complainant booked a flat on 25.01.2018 and paid Rs.2,00,000/- though two nos. of cheques vide No.039681 dated 25.01.2018 for Rs.1,00,000/- and another cheque vide No.039682 dated 26.01.2018 for Rs.1,00,000/- of SBI and O.P. issued a money receipt by putting signature of their authorized signatory. As per their assurance the complainant entered in to an agreement on 26.03.2018 authenticated by the Notary public, Agartala on 07.04.2018. as per agreement the complainant paid Rs.3,00,000/- through cheques No. 039681 and 039682 dated 25.01.2018 of SBI, Nirjuli Branch and Rs.1,00,000/- vide cheque No. 039683 dated 07.03.2018. again complainant has paid Rs.1,50,000/- in 3 installments through online payment to the O.Ps. thereafter on several occasion the complainant and his wife meet with the O.Ps and demanded his flat but  the O.Ps were dragging this matter and till now they did not provide him any flat rather O.P pocketed/misappropriated money. Then the complainant had issued a letter to the O.P. No.1  and 2  on 27.01.2020 but though the O.P. received the notice they  intentionally evaded their liability. On 25.02.2020 complainant issued a notice through his Learned Counsel and demanded for flat within one month form received of the notice. Though the O.Ps received the notice they did not provide the flat. Lastly on 11.08.2020 the complainant along with his wife  and his another friend visited  the office of the O.Ps but the O.Ps rebuked them. The O.Ps Sri Monoj Das made agreement with the complainant on behalf of other O.Ps on the strength of Power of Attorney vide deed No. IV-532 dated 2th July, 2012 for providing the flat in the 4th floor along with car parking place and the O.Ps have withdrawn the total amount of Rs.4,50,000/-. The complainant had waited till 11.08.2020 for completion of the project and take possession of the flat. But the O.Ps did not hand over the flat as per agreement dated 26.03.2018.  Finding no other alternative the complainant issued notice through his counsel on 25.02.2020 demanding the flat but the O.Ps failed to provide the flat to the complainant. After waiting for period the complainant met with the O.Ps on 11.05.2020 to know the status of construction of the project but the O.Ps expressed their inability to provide flat and rebuked the complainant. The complainants have gone through mental harassment for many years and caused monitory loss also  for the act of the O.Ps. Hence complainant filed this complaint before this Commission for getting relief.   

 

2. After getting notice from this commission the O.Ps did not file written statement. Hence the case proceeded exparte against the O.P. vide order dated 25.01.2021. 

 

3. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE COMPLAINANT:-

The complainant submitted his examination in chief on affidavit as P.W.1 and another another witness namely Gouri Sankar Roy, as P.W.2. Complainant submitted five documents vide firsiti dated 11.09.2020 which are marked as Exhibit -2 Series. Five documents submitted vide  firisti dated 11.02.2022 are marked as Exhibit- 1 Series. 

 

4. POINTS TO BE DETERMINED: - 

(i) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps?

  (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation/ relief as prayed for?

 

5. DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF:-  

We have heard arguments from the complainant side.   We have gone through the complaint and the evidence adduced by way of affidavit by the complainant and witness as well as the documentary evidence produced by the complainant. We are satisfied that the complainant had entered into an agreement with the O.Ps  through   Agreement dated 26.03.2018. And complainant paid an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- in total as per agreement. The said flat is supposed to hand over to the complainant as per agreement. But we find that till filing of the complaint the O.Ps did not hand over the flat to the complainant. A number of correspondences were made between the complainant and the O.Ps. We find that the complainant became victim at the hands of the O.P No.1. According to us O.Ps had indulged an unfair trade practice. The complainant has suffered mental agony, and harassment on account of the unfair trade practice indulged in by the O.Ps.

 

6. In view of the discussion made above we find and hold that the complainant has succeeded in establishing the case U/S 35 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. We accordingly find that the O.Ps are guilty of committing unfair trade practice against the complainant and also deficiency of service.

 

 

7. It is hereby directed that the O.P. No.1 shall return Rs.4,50,000/-  being the amount of advance that had been paid by the complainant for booking of the flat as per agreement arrived at between the complainant and the O.Ps. The amount of Rs.4,50,000/- shall carry interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of payment/deposit made by the complainant as advance till the full payment is made. 

The O.Ps shall also pay Rs.40,000/- to the complainant for causing mental agony and harassment together with Rs.10,000/- being the cost of the litigation. Thus, O.Ps shall have to pay Rs. 5,00,000/-(Rs.4,50,000/- + Rs.40,000/- +Rs.10,000/-) additional 9% interest on Rs.4,50,000/- till the payment is made to the complainant within a period of 2 months from the date of judgment failing which the amount of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.10,000/- as awarded above shall also carry interest @ 9% P.A., till the payment is made in full. Supply copy of this judgment to both the parties free of costs.

 

Announced.

 

 

SRI R. PAL

PRESIDENT, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

 

 

Dr (SMT) B. PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA,

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.