DATE OF FILING                    :16.07.2014.

DATE OF S/R                            :12.09.2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :31.12.2014.

SMT. ANJU DUTTA ROY,

Daughter of late Haripada Dutta  Roy,

residing at 6/3/1, Khetra Mohan Banerjee Lane, P.S. Shibpur,

District Howrah……………………………………………………….. COMPLAINANT.

Versus   -

SRI PRASUN BANERJEE

Son of lt. Pradosh Kumar Banerjee,

22, Ananda Kumar Roy, Choudhury Lane,

P.S. Shibpur

Dist Howrah 711 102.…………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P   R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1. Complainant, Anju Dutta Roy, by filing a petition. U/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the O.P. to refund 60,000, being the advance payment towards the purchase of a flat, to pay Rs. 2,00,000 in total as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment and to pay  Rs.5000 as litigation cost along with the other order or orders as the Forum may deem fit and proper.

    

2. Brief fact of the case is that complainant made total advance payment ofRs60,000 to O.P., a promoter, to buy one flat at the proposed building to be constructed at Holding No. 37, Ananda Kumar Ray Choudhury Lane, Dist- Howrah vide annexures/money receipts out of a total consideration amount ofRs.4,25,000. It was also agreed between the parties that O.P. would hand over the possession of the flat within 6 months from the date of making such advance, i.e. 27.10.2013. But unfortunately, it is found by the complainant that O.P. neither developed the said land nor constructed any building on the said land even after the expiry of the scheduled period. So complainant repeatedly requested O.P. either to complete the same ortorefund her advance payment. O.P. simply avoided to do any positive work. And ultimately on 04.07.2014, he directly told the complainant that he would not refund her money which caused severe mental pain and agony for the complainant for which she has filed this instant petition praying for the aforesaid relief.

3. Notice was served upon O.P. But he did not turn up and no W/V has been filed by him. Accordingly, the case was heard ex parte.

    

4. Two points arose for determination :

    

   i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

   ii)         Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

    

    

   DECISION WITH REASONS :

    

5. We have carefully gone through complainant/petition and its annexures and noted its contents. With all hopes, complaint, being a lady, made an advance for purchasing an ownership flat for which O.P. also issued two money receipts wherefromit is very much clear that O.P. is a contractor and developer. But even after the expiry of scheduled period, O.P. failedto hand over the possession of a flat which he promised to do at the time of receiving advance amount of Rs.60000.00 from the complainant. Moreover, it is alleged by the complainant that no construction work was done on the scheduled premises which shows that O.P. has no willingness to construct any building thereon. On the other hand, he has retained the advance money of Rs.60,000/- paid by the complainant illegally, which is definitely not permissible under the law of the land. Moreover, the o.p. has not cared to appear before the Forum even after receiving summons. No W/V has been filed by him which clearly shows that he has nothing to put forward in his favour. And the complaint petition remains unchallenged and uncontroverted. And we have no difficulty to believe the unchallenged testimony of the complainant.O.P. has miserably failedto keep promise, which certainly amounts to deficiency in service coupled with unfair trade practice on his part, which should not be allowed to be perpetuated for an indefinite period.And we are of the candid opinion that it is a fit case where the prayers of the complainant should be allowed. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

    

               Hence,

                                                   O     R     D      E      R      E        D

                          

               That the C. C. Case No. 396 of 2014 ( HDF 396 of 2014 )  be  allowed exparte with  costs  against  the O.P. 

    

               That the  O.P. is directed to pay Rs.60,000.00 to the complainant within one month from this order i.d. 10% interest shall be charged till actual payment.  

    

               That O.P. is further  directed to pay Rs.3000.00 as compensation and Rs.2000.00 as litigation cost to the complainant within one month from this order i.d. 10% interest shall be charged till actual payment.

               The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

                

               Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.        

    

   DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

   BY   ME.  

    

    

                                                                      

         (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                  

     Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.