The instant consumer dispute relates to non-delivery of possession of the flat which was booked by the complainant by paying rupees 20,00,000 vide to account payee cheques of 10,0000  each. In favour of the Op Biswajit Chatterjee who happens to be one of the partners of M/S Chatterjee  construction which are owned by the OP no. 1 B Chatterjee and his wife. A deed of agreement on 10/11/2017 was executed between the complainant and the Ops for delivering a flat to be constructed at Labanya apartment situated at No. 1 Government Colony of Malda. The price of the flat was fixed at rupees 24,75,000 including the car parking space, as term of agreement which was stipulated at the time of execution of the agreement. The balance amount of rupees 4,75,000 was to be paid by the complainant at the time of sale deed. The complainant has paid rupees 20,00,000 by taking bank loan and EMI was paid by the complainant in due time but the flat was not delivered. So, he sent a notice to the OP asking him to hand over the flat within 30 days and after waiting the said period, the complainant has registered a consumer complaint by which he has prayed for refund of the money he has already paid, including the compensation, interest, litigation cost etc. The OP B Chatterjee has filed the written version on 9/1/2019 and denied material allegations levelled against him by the complainant and contended inter alia that the complainant has filed instant case with ulterior motive and actually he never purchased any flat from him. Rather he has approached the OP to invest some money in real estate business and in the guise of a buyer of flat, he has invested some money and he has already received more than invested money from the OP and after adjustment, all the investment amount, he has received more  money than the invested  money and actually the OP is entitled to get rupees 10,000 from the complainant, after all adjustment and the  instant consumer complaint was liable to be dismissed. The OP is being represented through Ld. Advocate JN Chowdhury. The complainant conducts the hearing of the case through personally.

During the course of the hearing of the case, the complainant submitted the affidavit in chief and questionnaires was furnished upon him by the OP and the compliant has replied the interrogatories. The Op did not adduce any evidence. During the course of hearing, the wife of the OP has committed suicide. The process of amicable settlement between then was started and the OP has already paid Rs. 11,00,000 to the complainant.

Thereafter, the Op B Chatterjee did not come to contest the consumer complaint further and for that reason, on the previous day the evidence of both sides was closed and argument was heard in presence of the complainant.

Decision  with reason

After going through entire proceedings of the case and more particularly the consumer complaint and written version, it appears to us that  the consumer complainant being a school teacher has intended to purchase a flat to be constructed by the OP and in order to purchase the same an agreement was executed between the parties to this case and as per terms of agreement, the complainant has paid rupees 20,00,000 to the OP by issuing two account payee cheques after obtaining loan from the Bank and the complainant has started paying back the loan amount with interest in terms of EMI.

But unfortunately the OP could not complete the construction work and could not deliver the possession of the flat in due time and for that reason, the dispute cropped up and the complainant has approached before this Commission for getting reliefs under the umbrella of consumer protection Act, 1986. During the course of hearing attempt of amicable settlement also could not be materialised and completed because the OP thereafter did not come before this Commission to settle the dispute amicably. So in clear terms, the complainant has yet to be paid rupees 9,00,000 (20,00,000-11,00,000) from the OP B Chatterjee and that amount obviously shall have to be returned back by the OP to the complainant as it is his obligation to repay the same.

Moreover the complainant has regularly approached before this Commission, coming from Malda by incurring huge expenses for travelling and he had to bear litigation costs and other expenses to conduct the hearing of the case. He is entitled to get the interest over rupees 20,00,000 which he has already paid to the Bank and such total interests he has claimed to the tune of rupees 3,29,616 rounded about 3,30,000 is justified one.

He has suffered a lot for not getting possession of the flat and for that reason, another Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation should be awarded in his favour and for litigation cost, the Commission thinks it fit to award rupees 25,000 as litigation cost to protect the interest of the consumer complainant.

So, the complainant P Kundu must get an ward (9,00,000+3,30,000+1,00,000+25,000) total Rupees 13,55,000/-. This the instant consumer dispute is hereby disposed of.

Hence it is,

Ordered,

That the instant consumer complaint be and the same Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is hereby allowed on its merit without imposing any further cost. The complainant P Kundu is hereby awarded rupees 13,55,000/- as reliefs under the provisions of CP Act, 1986, The Op Biswajit Chatterjee is hereby asked to pay rupees 13,55,000 to the consumer complainant within 45 days since the date of receiving the copy of the order, failing which interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum will be carried on over the entire award money.

Let the copy of order be supplied to the parties free of cost.