FINAL ORDER

Debi Sengupta, Member.

 This case has been filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the complainant, Arabinda Ghosh.

The complainant’s case in short is that on 01.02.2016 the complainant filed an application for renewal of his building plan and as per order of the opposite party the complainant deposited Rs.1100/- on 3.2.2016 in the office of the opposite party.  After receiving the said money the opposite party did not renew the building plan of the complainant and for which the complainant suffered huge loss amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- and the purchased material for construction was damaged.  The complainant repeatedly visited the office of the opposite party for renewal of the plan but plan was not sanctioned by the opposite party.

That as per partition deed the opposite party sanctioned the building plan of the other co-sharer but opposite party did not renew the building plan of the complainant and for which the complainant suffering mental pain and agony.

Finding no other alternative the complainant filed this case before Forum and prayed for relief with a direction to the opposite party to renew the building plan and pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for mental pain, agony and harassment to the complainant.

The opposite party by filing written version stated that after submission of the renewal application by the complainant, the opposite party as usual in the official course of business passed order for depositing fees, which the complainant did but at that time the opposite party received a complaint against the complainant from his nephew Ashoke Ghosh on 30.1.2016 and 1.2.2016 and for that renewal of the plan was temporarily stopped by a notice dated 5.2.2016.  Thereafter the opposite party fixed a date for hearing of the matter inviting both the parties but no consensus conclusion has been arrived at.   

The opposite party has given instruction to the building department to produce all papers and if necessary called a board meeting.  The opposite party has no grudge against the complainant but he has to do anything as per existing rules and regulations.  The opposite party is trying to renew the plan of the complainant as far as shortest possible time after observing all the rules and regulation.

Decision with reason

The complainant stated that as per order of the opposite party he deposited Rs.1100/- on 3.2.2016 in the office of the opposite party but inspite of that the opposite party did not renew the building plan and for which the complainant suffered huge loss.  In the written version the opposite party admitted the grievance of the complainant and also submits that the opposite party is trying to renew the building plan as early as possible.  It is also admitted by the opposite party that after receiving a renewal fee the opposite party temporarily stopped the renewal process as the opposite party received a complaint against the complainant from his nephew Ashoke Ghosh and thereafter the opposite party fixed a date for hearing of the matter inviting both the parties but no conclusion and no decision was taken in absence of the disputing parties.  Opposite party also submits that opposite party has no grudge against the complainant.

From the above discussion we may safely conclude that though opposite party had no grudge and there is no intention on the part of the opposite party to renew the building plan but opposite party is deficient in providing service towards this complainant who is a consumer of opposite party in time.  Opposite party should tried his level best to decide the matter and appropriate action.  The complainant is an aged person and by sending letters he wants to know what will be the consequences of this matter.  If opposite party has no intention to harass the complainant then opposite party should appear properly by taking steps in this case filed by the complainant.  So, there is gross negligence on the part of the opposite party as the complainant harass mentally and physically.

It is, there`fore, hold that the complainant has proved the deficiency of service against the opposite party.  In this connection to prove this case some documents have been filed by the complainant such as evidence on affidavit, brief notes of argument, Xerox copy of letters dated 2.3.2016, 6.4.2016 and 4.6.2016 addressing to the Chairman, Chinsurah Municipality, Hooghly, Xerox copy of payment order slip, Xerox copy of letter regarding revalidation addressing to the Chairman, Chinsurah Municipality.   In this complaint case though opposite party appeared and filed written version and thereafter the opposite party did not take steps.  Several dates were given to the opposite party as opposite party prayed for time for filing evidence on affidavit.  In the complaint case as per material on record has not been challenged  by the opposite party and opposite party is very much reluctant to comply the order of the Ld. Forum.  Thus the case succeeds exparte and as such the complainant gets the relief as prayed for.  Hence it is

Ordered

that the complaint case No.30/2017 be and the same is allowed exparte against the opposite party with litigation cost of Rs.3000/-.  The opposite party is directed to renew the building plan of the complainant immediately.  The complainant is also directed to pay Rs.17,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment to the complainant.  The above directions will be complied with within 45 days from the date of this order.  At the event of failure to comply with the order, opposite party shall pay cost of Rs.50/- for each day delay, if caused on expiry of 45 days by depositing the amount in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.

Let the copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.