Date of filing : 26.03.2018
Judgment : Dt.18.01.2023
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President.
This petition of complain is filed by Surajit Debnath under section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties (referred as OP hereinafter) namely (1) Tapan Ghosh, Managing Director and (2) ABS Land Development & Construction Pvt. Ltd.
Complainant’s case, in short, is that he entered into an agreement with the OP on 30.5.2012 to purchase plot of land being No.B-15 and B-16 described in the agreement on payment of consideration of Rs.17,60,000/-. The land was to be developed by the OP and was to be handed over within three years. But the OPs failed to develop the said project namely Arpan Complex. Complainant has paid amount of Rs. 14,37,350/- to the O.P. But the OP has failed to deliver the possession of the plot and neither the deed of conveyance has been executed in favour of the Complainant in terms of the agreement. Complainant met with the O.P. No. 1 on 05.01.2018 and requested him to refund the money paid by him but the same was not refunded. So, the present case has been filed by the Complainant praying for directing the OP to refund the amount of Rs.14,37,350/- and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.
Complainant has annexed with the complaint petition, copy of the agreement for sale dt.30.5.2012, statement of account regarding payment made by the Complainant, and a money receipt.
OP has contested the case by filing the written version denying and disputing the allegations contending inter alia specifically that the OPs have already demarcated and physically handed over the said plot to the Complainant. But Complainant herself has not taken any step to register the deed of sale in her favour in spite of several requests made by the OPs. Thus OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.
During the course of evidence, both the parties have filed their respective affidavit-in-chief followed by filing of questionnaire and reply thereto. Ultimately, argument has been advanced.
So only the point requires determination is whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons
To establish his claim, Complainant has filed the copy of the agreement entered into between the parties, wherefrom it appears that the OP agreed to sell the plot being No.B-15 and B-16 after its development in the project named and style as “Arpan Complex,” on consideration of Rs.8,80,000/- each. It was agreed between the parties that the possession of the plots as agreed would be handed over within three years which ended in December, 2015. In order to show that he has paid Rs. 14,37,350/- in total, complainant has filed the statement of account, and a money receipt. O.P.s in their written version have not disputed and denied payment of the sum as claimed by the complainant. OPs have only claimed that they have already handed over the plots to the Complainant, but in order to substantiate the delivery of possession of the plots, no document has been filed by the OPs. It is the specific claim of the Complainant that the project has not yet been completed. So, in the absence of any specific document by the OP about delivery of possession and also as in the written version, no specific date of handing over of the possession allegedly has been stated, the claim of the OP cannot be accepted. So, on consideration of the statement and also as payment of the amount by the complainant has not been disputed and denied by the OP in their written version, complainant is entitled to the refund of the said amount of Rs.14,37,350/- in total. However in the given facts & situation of this case we find no justification to allow any compensation.
Hence
ORDERED
CC/156/2018 is allowed on contest. O.P.s are directed to refund sum of Rs.14,37,350/- to the complainant within two months from this date. OP is also directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- within the aforesaid period of two months failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 10% till its realization.