Tripura

West Tripura

CC/79/2016

Sri Pijush Kanti Das. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman Dharitri Infraventure Pvt. Ltd. & Others. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.P.K.Dhar, Mr.R.G.Chakraborty, Miss. S.Das.

24 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

CASE NO:  CC- 79 of  2016

Sri Pijush Kanti Das,
S/O- Late Rai Mohan Das,
Khowai Town,
P.O. & P.S. Khowai,
District- Khowai.        .........Complainants.

             ___VERSUS___

1. Dharitri Infraventure Pvt. Ltd.,
194 Canal Street, Kolkata – 700048,
Represented by the Chairman.

2. The Director,
Dharitri Infraventure Pvt. Ltd.,
194, Canal Street, Kolkata- 700048.

3. Royal Infra Developer, RDB Building,
Sector-V, Block EP & GP, 8th Floor,
Cabin 857, Salt Lake City, 
Kolkata- 700091,
Represented by its Chairman.

4. The Director, 
Royal Infra Developer, RDB Building,
Sector-V, Block EP & GP, 8th Floor,
Cabin 857, Salt Lake City, 
Kolkata- 700091.        …..........Opposite party.

      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

For the complainants    : Sri Pradyot Kumar Dhar,
                  Sri Rana Gopal Chakraborty,
                  Miss Swastika Das,
                  Advocates.
                     
For the O.Ps             : Sri Bhaskar Deb,
                  Sri Debdas Bakshi,
                  Smt. Paramita Roy,
                  Smt. Arpita Bhattacharjee,
                  Advocates.
                         

                             
        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 24.03.2017

J U D G M E N T
                
        The case arises on the petition filed by Pijush Kanti Das. Petitioner's case in short is that being attracted by the advertisement in the Dainik Sambad on 30.08.15 he intended to purchase flat at Rajarhat area. Said advertisement was given by O.P. at Agartala. As per terms of the advertisement complainant submitted application to Dharitri Infraventure Pvt. Ltd. along with draft Rs.25,000/-. He applied for Rs.750 Sq. ft. at Rajarhat. Thereafter complainant visited the office of the O.P. and also the site location at Rajarhat in the month of September, 2015. He found that step not taken for proposed construction and the advertisement given in the Dainik Sambad is false. So, he cancelled the booking and requested the O.P. to refund Rs.25,000/- deposited by him. But the O.P. and their officers refused to refund. Advocate's notice given and thereafter he filed this prayer for refund of the amount and also compensation for harassment.

2.        Notice sent to the O.P. O.P. appeared and filed written objection. It is admitted that Rs.25,000/- was paid by demand draft for 750 sq. ft. flat area. O.P. also agreed to return the application amount as the complainant is not interested to purchase the property. But the petitioner filed no written application for refund. Advocate' notice was not given. Many persons booked the flat. Company is a renowned company with prestige and dignity. There was no deficiency of service by O.P. 

3.        On the basis of contention raised by the parties following points cropped up for determination:
        (I)Whether the O.P. adopted unfair trade practice in the matter of sale of flat?
        (II)Whether petitioner is entitled to get back the money deposited by him and also compensation?

4.        Petitioner produced the original copy of challan dt. 31.08.15, original copy of challan, copy of demand notice, receipt of  the courier DTDC with the Dainik Sambad Paper, vouchers of Royal Enclave.
        Petitioner also produced the statement of affidavit of one witness i.e., the petitioner, Pijush Kanti Das.
        
5.        O.P. produced the copy of refund cheque, Royal Enclave list of charges, summary of account statement, other papers. 
        O.P. produced no oral evidence and did not cross examine the witness.
6.        So on the basis of evidence on record we shall now determine the point. 

            Findings and decision:
7.        It is admitted and established fact that Rs.25,000/- was paid by the petitioner for purchasing 750 sq. ft. flat area at Royal Enclave from the O.P. The list of charges and the statement of account as produced by the O.P. clearly indicates that on 31.08.2015 the amount was received by the O.P. In the next month in September, 2015 petitioner visited the proposed area and was shocked to see that nothing was done for construction work. So he cancelled this order and wanted to get back the money in the month of September, 2015. Petitioner stated that he visited the office of the O.P. and the site and location of the proposed construction and he requested the O.P. to refund Rs.25,000/-. They assured that the amount will be refunded shortly, but did not refund the money. Then he served Advocate's Notice on 30.03.16. We have gone through the Advocate Notice dt. 30.03.16. It was sent to the O.P. by courier service. The contention of the O.P. is that written prayer for refund not given. But this demand notice itself is a written request for refund of the amount. But the O.P. did not take care of it and amount was not refunded. No agreement was signed by the petitioner.

8.        We have gone through the advertisement given in the Dainik Sambad. In the paper advertisement it is written that the application fee Rs.25,000/- which is refundable. Cheque is to be drawn in favour of Dharitri Infraventure Pvt. Ltd. So in the advertisement it is clear that amount was refundable. In spite of that on the verbal request of the complainant the amount was not refunded. Terms and conditions was shown in the list of charges as produced by the O.P. There it is written that buy back  and confirm within 6 months and 20% of booking amount will be get back offer. But this condition is not applicable on the petitioner as he did not enter into the agreement. He only wanted refund of the application fees Rs.25,000/-paid by him and claim was made within one month verbally and within 5 months in writing. Therefore O.P. was under obligation to refund the amount. 

9.         O.P. had given advertisement in Agartala daily newspaper and doing trade at Agartala. So, this court has sufficient jurisdiction to entertain this application. The practice adopted by the O.P. for doing the business at Agartala appears to be unfair trade practice. Petitioner was shocked to see that no arrangement was made for construction at all. But Rs.25,000/- was taken as application fees. It is true that many other persons also paid the amount but that can not justify the unfair trade of the O.P. The evidence on record as produced before us established the unfair trade practice of the O.P. Petitioner therefore, is entitled to get compensation and also refund of the application fees. Both the points are decided accordingly. 

10.        In view of our findings over the points we direct the O.Ps to refund Rs.25,000/- as agreed by them to the petitioner with 9% interest from the date of receipt of the amount i.e., on 15.08.16 till the date of payment. We also direct the O.P. to pay compensation Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost Rs.2000/- to the petitioner. In total O.P. shall pay Rs.37,000/- & interest @ 9% over Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner for refund and compensation and cost of litigation. Payment is to be made within one month from the date of judgment if not paid it will carry interest @ 9% P.A over the whole amount till the amount is paid. Supply copy of the judgment.
                      
                    Announced.

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA    SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.