DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 43 of  2023

 

Sri Sandip Chakraborty,

S/O- Late Samir Chakraborty,

Joynagar, Near J.P.C. Club,

P.S. West Agartala, 

West Tripura District-799001. ...........Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

1. Sri Rahul Das,

 

 

2.(a) Sri Dipak Datta,

 

 

 

 

    __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

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  O.P. No. 1 : Sri Tapan Saha,

 

For the O.P. No. 

 

 

ORDER  DELIVERED  ON:   30.01.2024

 

 

F I N A L    O R D E R

1. The complainant, Sandip Chakraborty has filed this complaint against the O.Ps alleging inter alia that the O.P. No.1, the owner of the firm namely 'Rajdeep Construction' entered into an agreement with O.P. No.2(a), 2(b) and 2(c) to construct multi-storied flat on the land of O.P. No.2(a), 2(b), & 2(c) as developer. Consequently, O.P. No.2(a), 2(b) and 2(c) executed the power of attorney in favour of the developer i.e., the O.P. No.1 to sell the flats for and on behalf of the other O.Ps i.e., the O.P. No.2(a), 2(b) and 2(c). 

1.1 The complainant entered into an agreement with the O.P. No.1 on 25.01.2022 to purchase a 3 BHK flat for Rs.50,12,800/- and accordingly advanced sum of Rs.5 lakhs on condition that the O.P. No.1 shall hand over the flat to the complainant within 21 months from the date of agreement but till date of filing the complaint on 15.05.2023, the O.P. No.1 did not hand over the flat and infact did not start construction also. The complainant repeatedly contacted the O.P. No.1 but to no good. 

1.2 On 06.04.2023 the complainant served a Legal Notice upon the O.P. No.1 giving copies to O.P. No.2(a), 2(b) and 2(c). However, although the O.P. No.1 even did not reply the notice, the O.P. No.2(a), 2(b) and 2(c) by reply dated 06.05.2023 informed that the agreement with developer was cancelled on 06.04.2023.

 

2. The O.P. No.1 in written objection pleaded that he is not at fault because O.P. No.2(a), 2(b) and 2(c) cancelled the agreement.

2.1 The further pleading of the O.P. No.1 is that if it is a breach of contract only Civil court has jurisdiction. It is further pleaded that as per clause 7 & 8 of the agreement if the agreement is cancelled the developer shall return the advanced money within 90 days but the complainant never approach the developer for cancellation of agreement.

2.2 The O.P. No.2(a), 2(b) and 2(c) denied any responsibility in this case and pleaded that the O.P. No.1 committed breach of contract with them hence, they cancelled the agreement with the O.P. No.1.

3. Parties submitted evidence on affidavit. 

 

4. Hearing argument the following points have emerged for discussion:-

 

5. Both the points are taken up together.

5.1 The jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission is in addition to but not in derogation which is very clear in the statute. The complainant is consumer of service of the O.P. No.1 hence, this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. 

5.2 This Commission also fails to agree with the argument of the Learned Counsel Mr. T. Saha that only Civil Court has jurisdiction or that as per clause 7 & 8 of the agreement the O.P. No.1 shall have to pay the advance amount within 90 days but the agreement has not been cancelled. As on today, the O.P. No.1 even has not been able to start the construction work because for the fact that the O.P. No.2(a), 2(b) and 2(c) have cancelled the agreement with the O.P. No.1 as the O.P. No.1 as developer violated some conditions of agreement with the land owner i.e., the O.P. No.2(a), 2(b) and 2(c). As such the O.P. No.1 is not in a position even to start the construction. As such there is no question of cancellation of agreement by the complainant. Even the O.P. No.1 did not reply the Legal Notice of the complainant rather, the O.P. No.2(a), 2(b) and 2(c) in reply to the Legal Notice informed the complainant that they had already cancelled the agreement  with the O.P. No.1. Thus, the argument of Learned Counsel is not acceptable that the complainant did not approach the O.P. No.1 for cancellation of the agreement as such it is clear case of huge deficiency in service by the O.P. No.1.

6. Both the points are decided accordingly.

 

7. In the result, it is ordered that the O.P. No.1 is guilty of deficiency in service  hence, he  shall return Rs. 5 lakhs to the complainant with interest @ 7.5% P.A. from the date of contract i.e., 25.01.2022 till the date of actual payment.  The O.P. No.1 shall also pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh to the complainant as compensation within 30 days from today otherwise this amount shall also carry interest @ 7.5% P.A. from today till the date of actual payment.

8. The case stands disposed of.

9. Supply copy of this Final Order free of cost to all the parties. 

Announced.

 

 

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

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.