| Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajarhat (New Town ) | | Kreta Suraksha Bhavan,Rajarhat(New Town),2nd Floor | | Premises No. 38-0775, Plot No. AA-IID-31-3, New Town,P.S.-Eco Park,Kolkata - 700161 |
|
| Complaint Case No. CC/76/2019 | | ( Date of Filing : 30 Aug 2019 ) |
| | | | 1. Smt. Krishna Debnath | | Residing at House no.24,AD Nagar, Road-5, Ward No.25, P.O-Arundhuti Nagar, P.s-West Agartala, Dist-West Tripura. |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. Sri Suman Jana | | Director of M/s Dharitri Infraventure Pvt. Ltd, at Present Address- Rayal Enclave, DW- 51, Merline Infinite 6th Floor Unit 606, Sector-5 Salt Lake City, Near R.s. Software Stop, Kolkata-700091. | | 2. SMT DIPANNITA SAMANTA | | Director of M/s Dharitri Infraventure Pvt Ltd, at Premises No-194, Cannel Street, Pratiksha building 4th Floor, P.O- sreebhumi, P.S- Lake Town, Dist- North 24 Pgs, Kolkata-700048. | | 3. M/s. Dharitri Infraventure Pvt. Ltd. | | Royal Enclave, DW-51, Merlin Infinite 6th Floor, Unit-606, Sector-5, Saltlake City, near R.S. Software Stop, Kolkata- 700091. |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| Final Order / Judgement | - The Ops being realtors floated a housing project named as “Royal Enclave” in Rajarhat area in the District of North 24 Parganas and the complainants being in need of dwelling unit selected 1BHK flat measuring about 350 Sq.ft. and priced at Rs. 9,00,000/- in the said housing project. Accordingly an agreement was entered into in between the realtors and the purchasers on 01.06.2016 for the transfer of the aforesaid flat in favour of the complainants. On the self-same day, payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- was made as part payment of the price of the flat. It was agreed by and in between the parties that the flat would be delivered within 36 months from the date of agreement. But on 05.03.2018 under a letter communicated to the complainants it was disclosed that the project site would be changed from Hatisala to Hudrait. The complainants were dissatisfied with the said scheme for change of project site and they lodged the claim for refund of the paid amount. Since the Ops have changed the project site without obtaining prior consent of the complainants and since the Ops have failed to return the paid amount, the complainants had to file this case on 30.08.2019 for getting refund with interest @18% per annum, compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/-.
- With a view to contest the case, the Ops filed written version on 28.09.2020, but skipped the stage of filing questionnaire or evidence. The W/S contains a clear cut admission to that effect that Rs. 1,50,000/- was paid by the complainants for purchasing a flat in “Royal Enclave”.
- In support of their case, the complainants have filed (a) agreement for sale dated 01.06.2016, (b) evidence in chief, (c) copy of letter dated 05.03.2018 and (d) money receipt granted on 21.09.2016 by the Ops for the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Those documents have gone unchallenged for which they may be supposed to carry impeccable evidentiary value. This is more so because they do not suffer from any major inherent inconsistency. The documents filed by the complainants appear to be sufficient to prove that payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- was made on 01.06.2016 under an agreement for purchase of flat priced at Rs. 9,00,000/-.
- The letter dated 05.03.2018 bears an indication that the developers faced some inconvenience to proceed with the project of “Royal Enclave” at Hatisala, for which they shifted the same to a different area. It is in the evidence of the complainants that they did not like the new project area for which they pressed for refund of the amount. It is also transparent therefrom that the developers also agreed to return the paid amount. But refund of the paid amount was not made before the date of filing of this case i.e. on 30.08.2019 and this is why the complainants had to file this case for relief stated above. It was obligatory on the part of the developers to return Rs. 1,50,000/- to the complainants shortly after 05.03.2018 and the complainants were entitled to get the said amount from the Ops immediately thereafter. Obviously, the Ops who are enjoying the complainants’ money since 01.06.2016 unjustly for their own benefit should, therefore, be put under order to refund the same. There was no fault on the part of the complainants for non-performance of the agreement dated 01.06.2016. The complainants parted with Rs. 1,50,000/- under a futile agreement had undoubtedly to put up with pain-stricken anxiety and harassment, for which they would get compensation and the amount of compensation may, in view of the amount of harassment and anxiety, be worked out at Rs. 75,000/-. The refund should be made with interest @10% per annum and the litigation cost to which the complainant are entitled maybe fixed at Rs. 25,000/-.
- The case is thus disposed of with the following direction :-
- The Ops will return Rs. 1,50,000/- to the complainant with interest @10% per annum with effect from the date of payment (i.e. 01.06.2016) till realization within a period of 45 days hence, failing which the amount will accrue interest @10% per annum.
- The Ops will also pay Rs. 75,000/- as compensation and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation cost totalling Rs. 1,00,000/- within a period of 45 days hence, failing which the amount will accrue interest @12% per annum.
Let a plain copy be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR. Dictated and corrected by [HON'BLE MR. Lakshmi Kanta Das]
PRESIDENT | |
