West Bengal

Hooghly

CC/197/2016

Sri Pradip Kr. Panja - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Sudip Nath & Ors - Opp.Party(s)

21 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, HOOGHLY
CC OF 2013
PETITIONER
VERS
OPPO
 
Complaint Case No. CC/197/2016
 
1. Sri Pradip Kr. Panja
Hindmotor
Hooghly
West Bengal
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Sri Sudip Nath & Ors
Uttarpara
Hooghly
West Bengal
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Sri Biswanath De PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE Smt. Devi Sengupta MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 21 Nov 2017
Final Order / Judgement

The complainant’s case is that complainant made agreement with Op for purchase one flat measuring 1000 sq.ft. Cost of flat Rs.10,00,000/-. Complainant paid Rsw.4,00,000/- from 6.6.2011 to 2.9.2011 total sum Rs.4,00,000/-. Later on in the last part of 2014 the Op informed the complainant the size of the flat has been enhanced to 1300 sq.ft and price has been fixed Rs.13,00,000/- and the complainant agreed to that proposal of the Op and paid sum amount of money and thus total money stand Rs.10,24,741/- out of Rs.13,00,000/-. The time of the execute of the sale deed and giving possession of the flat between the parties was 18 months from the date of agreement i.e. from date of 2.9.2011 but subsequently that has been ratified by both sides, although that fact has not been incorporated in the agreement between the parties. But complainant has stated that fact in the complaint. Op lastly told the complainant to give the flat by August 2016 within which the complainant also would pay the balance amount, but after passing the month September, 2016 the Op was not able to make any

                                                                  

arrangement to give possession of the flat as per agreement of sale. So, the complainant arrived here for getting the flat and other reliefs as prayed for.

            OP no.1 and 2 contested the case by filing Written version denying inter alia all material allegations. The Op admitted the case and stated that complainant paid amount of Rs.10,20,000/- out of Rs.13,00,000/-.  Op states that they have already made a proposal to the complainant to provide a flat in the nearby area within two years , failing which they will pay back the amount of Rs.10,20,000/-. The Op has taken the plea of monetary crisis for which he could not complete the project in time. Hence, he prays submission for considering the matter sympathetically and pass the order accordingly.

            Complainant filed copy of agreement, Evidence in chief and Written Notes of argument. Op also filed Written version, Evidence in chief and W.N.A.   

POINTS FOR DECISION :

1)Whether the complainant is a consumer ?                                        

2)Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oP ?                                                                                               

3)Whether the complainant/petitioner is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?                                                                               

DECISION WITH REASONS :

   All the points are taken together for easiness of discussion.

                                                                    

            It is admitted fact that the complainant paid Rs.10,20,000/- is admitted by the oP and it is also admitted that the project has yet not been completed till this date of 15.2.2017 when Op filed Written version and Op prays further time for two years , failing which Op shall pay back the amount Rs.10,20,000/- with bank interest. But this admitted fact of Op is not in unison with the tune of agreement and facts stands that OP has done much harassment to the complainant since the date of agreement and date of first payment. The conduct of the oP is not believable and cannot be construed a fact to be true and effectual. On the other hand, complainant is being deprived of his right of residence even taking the cost amount of Rs.10,20,000/- . So the further time of two years as prayed by the oP in para 13 of the WV cannot be considered as gospel truth. Accordingly, we have no

hesitation to save the interest of the complainant/consumer by allowing his prayer partly. So after deliberation over the case we are of the opinion that the complainant’s case succeeds. Hence it is –

                                                              Ordered

            That the C.C. no. 197 of 2016 be and the same is allowed on contest. The Opposite party no.1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.10,20,000/- to the complainant  with interest @ 12% per annum from 2.9.2011 till full payment is made. Op  no.1

                                                               

and 2 are also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental his mental agony, harassment and pain. The Ops no.1 and 2 are also directed to pay Rs.30,000/- towards litigation cost to the complainant.

            The Ops shall comply the above orders within 45 days from the date of this order i.d. Rs.300/- per day will be imposed upon the Opposite Party and that amount will be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Fund.

            Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Sri Biswanath De]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE Smt. Devi Sengupta]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.