Order No.   14    Dated   27/08/2015.

       The case of the complainant in short is that o.p. offered to sale a plot of land measuring 1440 sq.ft. at their Eastern Meadow Project at Bantala under Khodati Mouza at a price of rs.1,40,000/- on condition that they would develop the plot of the land for residential purpose, develop roads and road demarcation and had over possession of the plot of land after such development. The price included development charges too.

            Complainant on good faith believed such promises of o.p. and paid a sum of Rs.14,000/- as initial deposit on 22.12.04 and residual amount of (Rs.1,40,000 – Rs.14,000) i.e. Rs.1,26,000/- in 36 installment, the first one of which was paid on 31.12.04 and last one on 14.9.07 for the plot of land being plot no.C46/22.12.2004.

            O.p. issued a certificate dt.4.1.05 to that effect over leaf of which clearly shows that they agreed to provide service for development of roads, road demarcation and individual plot of land.

            O.p. executed an agreement on 29.7.05 with the complainant for that purpose and it was clearly mentioned at page-02 of the said agreement that the o.p. would develop plot of land of the complainant for the purpose of residential complex.

            It is clearly mentioned at clause 6 of the said agreement that on receipt of full amount of Rs.1,40,000/- the o.p. will develop the plot of land as mentioned above, hand over possession to the complainant and execute proper deeds of conveyance.

            O.p. on every such occasion promised to do the needful but in reality did nothing.          Hence, the case was filed by the complainant with the prayers contained in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint.

Decision with reasons:

            Sole o.p. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.p. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

            It has been stated by o.p. that there is no such cause of action in the instant case and no specific allegation has been made out by complainant against the o.p. and false allegation, if any, made by complainant, those are beyond the terms and conditions of the agreement and such prayer of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with cost. It has been alleged by o.p. that the claim of the complainant is not covered under the provisions of the C.P. Act, 1986. O.p. has alleged that the agreement was signed on 29.7.05 and there is no substance in the complaint petition.

            We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we are of the views that the agreement was signed between the parties and complainant paid total sum of Rs.1,40,000/-. O.p. did not comply with the agreement and such action on the part of o.p. amounts to deficiency of service.

            So, we are of the confirmed views that o.p had deficiency in service being service provider towards the consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. O.p. is directed to refund the complainant a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- (Rupees one lakh forty thousand) only which complainant paid to o.p. and is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.

                        Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.