DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C.C. No. 249/2021
Date of Filing Date of Admission Date of Disposal
07.10.2021 29.10.2021 02.09.2024
Complainant/s:- | 1. Sri Somenath Addy, Son of Late Gourmohon Addy 2. Smt. Tripti Addy, Wife of Somenath Addy Both residing at No.P-78, Narendra Nagar, post Office Belgharia, Police Belgharia, Kolkata 700056. Station Belgharia, Kolkata – 700056. =Vs= |
Opposite Party/s:- | 1. Sri Sujit Roy Chowdhury, Son of Chowdhury, Late Ajit Roy residing Vivekananda Colony Khardah, P.O. Panihati, Kolkata - 700114. at P.S. Khardah, P.O. Panihati, Kolkata – 700114. 2. P.R. Builder, Represented by Panna Lal Aich, A partnership firm having office at Kajipara Road, P.O. Panihati, P.S. Khardah, Kolkata – 700114. 3. Sri Panna Lal Aich, son of Late Jitendra Nath Aich, residing Kajipara Road, P.O.Panihati, P.S. Khardah, Kolkata 700114. 4. Sri Ranjan Paul, son of Late ranjit Paul residing at Angeles nagar, Post Office Panihati, P.S.Khardah, Kolkata 700114 5. M/s Sayani Builders Kishore Mohan Banerjee Road, Dhankol (near C.W.C), Panihati, Kolkata 700114. P.O. Panihati, PS. Khardah. |
P R E S E N T :- Sri. Daman Prosad Biswas……….President.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu…………………. Member.
JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER
Complainants alleged that one agreement for sale was executed on 08/06/2016 relating to sale of a flat and by dint of the said agreement O.P No. 1-4 were agreed to sale a flat in favour of the Complainant with the consideration of Rs. 28,00,000/- and out of the said amount Complainant paid Rs. 18,20,000/-. After lapse of the schedule time of delivery Complainants requested the O.P No. 1-4 to cancel the aforesaid agreement and also asked them to refund them Rs. 18,20,000/- but O.Ps did not pay any heed. Thereafter, he lodged one complaint before the Consumer Affairs Department wherein O.P No. 4 on behalf of O.P No. 1-4 agreed to refund Rs. 20,00,000/- in favour of the Complainants on 22/03/2021 but thereafter he failed to comply the same.
Hence, the Complainant filed this case and prayed for direction upon the Opposite Parties to pay Rs. 20,00,000/- along with 18% interest, compensation amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/-, cost of the case amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- and other reliefs.
O.P No. 2-5 appeared in this record and filed W/V and denied the entire allegations. They further contended that description of the disputed flat is vague and further denied that Complainants not yet paid Rs. 8,20,000/- in favour of the O.P No. 4 or O.P No. 1-4.
They admitted that Complainant paid Rs. 10,00,000/- in favour of the O.P No. 1-4. He admitted that O.P No. 4 on behalf of the O.P No. 1-4 was present before the Asstt. Director of Consumer Affairs & F.B.P. They denied the fact that O.P No. 4 was agreed to refund Rs. 20,00,000/- in favour of the Complainants. They prayed for dismissal of the case.
Decision with Reasons
Complainants in support of their case filed affidavit-in-chief, O.P Nos. 2-4 filed questionnaire, Complainants gave answer. O.P No. 4 filed affidavit-in-chief on behalf of O.P No. 2-5, Complainants filed questionnaire, he filed answer. We have carefully gone through those evidences.
Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./
: : 2 : :
C.C. No. 249/2021
We have carefully gone through the petition of complaint and aforesaid W/V. We have also carefully gone through the documents filed by the Complainants at the time of filing of this case.
We have carefully gone through the BNA filed by the Complainants and BNA filed by the O.P No. 2-5.
We have also heard the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant and Ld. Advocate for the O.P No. 2-5 at length at the time of hearing argument.
On careful perusal of agreement for sale.
We find that O.P No. 4 on behalf of O.P No. 1 executed the same and he also executed the said document on behalf of O.P No. 2-4 being the Developer. We find that over the said document it has described that O.P No. 1-4 agreed to sale a flat in favour of the Complainants with the consideration of Rs. 28,00,000/- and out of the said amount Mr. Ranjan Paul (O.P NO. 4) on behalf of O.P No. 1-4 received Rs. 10,00,000/-. During hearing of argument O.P No. 1-4 admitted the said fact.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant argued at the time of hearing that he subsequently paid Rs. 8,20,000/- in favour of the Opposite Parties. He produced copy of those receipts.
On perusal of those documents we find that complainants paid Rs. 3,00,000/- on 27/08/2019, Rs. 5,00,000/- on 11/11/2019 and Rs. 20,000/- on 12/12/2019. We find that Mr. Ranjan Paul (O.P No. 4) received the said amount on behalf of Sayani Builders.
During hearing Ld. Advocate for the O.P No 2-5 argued that O.P No. 2-4 not yet received the said amount as Developer. So they are not binding upon by the said amount.
On perusal of aforesaid agreement we find that in the back page of agreement O.P No. 2-4 gave an endorsement about receipt of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 25/07/2019 and Rs. 5,00,000/- on 27/08/2019 by putting the seal of P.R. Builders that is the Developer Firm. So it is clear before us that O.P No. 4 as well as O.P No. 2-4 have received the aforesaid sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- from the Complainants.
So O.P No. 2-4 cannot deny the said amount. It is very unfortunate that O.P No. 4 being the owner of O.P No. 2 (Developer Company) after receipt of the said amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- subsequently denying the same. It indicates his dishonest mentality.
In view of aforesaid discussion it is clear before us that Complainants have paid Rs. 18,00,000/- in favoaur of the Complainats as a consideration money of a flat.
Complainants further alleged that O.P No. 1-4 could not complete the said flat within the stipulated period mentioned in the aforesaid agreement. Thereafter he prayed for cancellation of the agreement but O.P No. 1-4 did not pay any heed about the proposal of the complainants. Thereafter matter was referred before the Asstt. Director, Consumer Affairs Department & Fair Business Practice.
Contd. To Page No. 3 . . . ./
: : 3 : :
C.C. No. 249/2021
Thereafter dispute was settled amicably on 22/03/2021 and O.P No. 4 was executing one document was agreed to pay Rs. 20,00,000/- in favour of the Complainants within 26/07/2021. But O.P No. 4 as well as O.P No. 1-4 did not comply the said undertaking which he gave before the aforesaid authority.
Ld. Advocate for the O.P No. 1-5 failed to give any satisfactory explanation at the time of hearing argument as to why they did not comply the said undertaking.
On perusal of said document dated 22/03/2021 which was executed infront of Asstt. Director, Consumer Affairs Department & Fair Business Practice. We find that O.P No.4 put his signature over the said document and agreed to pay Rs. 20,00,000/- in favour of the Complainants within 26/07/2021 but they did not return the same in favour of the Complainants within the aforesaid date.
O.P No. 4 did not raise allegation regarding execution of the aforesaid document.
Their such type of act is nothing but deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
On careful perusal of record we find that Complainants are the consumer and O.P No. 1-5 are the service provider.
Having regard to the aforesaid discussion it is clear before us that Complainants have able to established their grievance by sufficient documents beyond reasonable doubt against O.P No. 1-4 and they are entitled to relief as per their prayer.
In the result present complaint succeeds.
Hence,
It is,
Ordered,
That the present case vide no. C.C./249/2021 be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P No. 2-4, allowed ex-parte against O.P No. 1 and dismissed on contest against O.P No. 5 with cost of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) to be paid by O.P No. 1-4 in favour of the Complainants.
O.P No. 1-4 jointly or severally are directed to refund Rs. 20,00,000/- (twenty lakh) in favour of the Complainants along with interest @ 18% p.a. from 26/07/2021 to till the date of actual payment preferably within 45 days from this day failing which Complainants shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
O.P No. 1-4 jointly and severally are directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh) as compensation in favour of the Complainants within 45 days from this day failing which the Complainants shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.
Dictated and Corrected by me
President
Member President
