District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly

                                                       PETITIONER

VS.

OPPOSITE PARTY

Complaint Case No.CC/103/2023

                                         (Date of Filing:-14.06.2023)

Dr. Sujit Kumar Majumdar, residing at

P.O. & P.S. Serampore,

District:-Hooghly, Pin:- 712201

1. Dharitri Infraventure Pvt. Ltd.

DN-51, Merlin Infinite, 6^th floor,

Suit-606, Sector-V, Salt Lake City

P.S. Electronic Complex, P.O. Sech Bhawan, Kolkata-700091

2. Sri Vicky Singh, Director, Dharitri Infraventure  Pvt. Ltd.

DN-51, Merlin Infinite, 6^th Floor, Suit-606, Sector-V, Salt Lake City,

Electronic Complex Police Station, P.O. Sech Bhawan, Kolkata-700091

And also residing at 5/H/1, Bagmari Road, Manicktala, Phoolbagan P.S.

P.O. Bengal Chemical, Kolkata-700054.

3. Sri Sandip Kumar, Manager, Dharitri Infraventure Pvt. Ltd.

DN-51, Merlin Infinite, 6^th floor, Suit-606,Sector-V, Salt Lake City, Electronic Complex P.S., P.O. Sech Bhawan, Kolkata-700091.

4. Dipanwita Samanta, Director, Dharitri Infraventure Pvt. Ltd.

DN-51, Merlin Infinite, 6^th Floor, Suit-606, Sector-V, Salt Lake City,

Electronics Complex P.S., P.O. Sech Bhawan, Kolkata-700091 and also residing at 196, Canal Street, 4^th floor, Sreebhumi, P.O. Sreebhumi,

P.S. Lake Town, Kolkata-700048

…………….Opposite Parties

Mr. Debasis Bhattacharya, Member

Mrs. Babita Choudhury, Member

PRESENT:

Dtd. 05. 09. 2024

Final Order/Judgment

Debasis Bhattacharya:- Presiding Member

The instant case filed u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 by the complainant originates from his grievances arising out of the opposite parties Real Estate Company and its Directors’ alleged failure to hand over possession of a Bungalow reported to have been booked by the Complainant and indifference towards refund of the booking money and advance payments made against the proposed purchase of the bungalow by the Complainant, consequent upon the said failure.

The fact of the case as stated by the Complainant in her complaint petition in a nutshell is as follows.

Having been attracted by the advertisement of the OP 1 real estate company in the year 2015 regarding their upcoming project namely ‘Royal Enclave’, the Complainant got interested to purchase a bungalow and accordingly, pursuant to a meeting held in his residence on 10.08.2015 with the representatives of the OPs it was decided by the OPs to allot to the Complainant a 2 Cottah bungalow measuring about 1100 sq. ft. with car parking and garden against a consideration price of Rs.32,00,000/-.

Reportedly, in this connection the Complainant had to put his signature in a form. On the same day the Complainant made a payment of Rs.1,00,000/- against the proposed purchase.

Subsequently at different points of time ranging from 10.09.2015 to 10.08.2019 the Complainant made further payments of Rs.19,17,400/- to the OP Real Estate Company in installments and on demand.

During this period the developments in chronological order are as follows.

1. On 19.12.15 the proposed site of the project in New Town was shown to the Complainant.
2. On 20.08.2018 the Complainant with utter surprise received a further allotment letter intimating that the site was changed to some other place in New Town. On the same date OPs came up with a Memorandum of understanding and the same which was though effective from 24.08.2018 was got signed by the Complainant.  However there was further surprise for the Complainant when it was noted that site of bungalow as mentioned in the allotment letter dtd.20.08.2014 was further changed.
3. Meanwhile the Complainant lost all the relevant documents related to the booking of the bungalow and advance payments made against the proposed purchase. Accordingly a G.D was lodged with the Serampore Police Station.
4.  On 07.08.2019 an agreement was executed allegedly with some major defects and this time again there was change of site and accordingly another allotment letter dtd.10.08.2019 was issued to the Complainant.
5. Thereafter during the Covid pandemic the Complainant made repeated persuasion in the matter of construction and possession of the bungalow but the OPs preferred to be unresponsive.
6. On 17.08.21 the Complainant sent a notice to the OPs requesting them to make refund of the entire amount already paid with interest. However this time also the OPs did not pay any heed to such request.
7. Reminder sent on 06.09.2021 and legal notice sent on 08.09.2021 were cared a fig by the OPs.
8. Finding no other alternative the Complainant on 30.09.2021sent written complaints in this regard to the District Magistrate Hooghly and all the concerned police authorities of Hooghly district and another written complaint was sent to the concerned police authority of Electronics Complex P.S., Salt Lake City.

It is claimed that initially there was no response from the concerned police authorities but in course of time Serampore P.S. arranged meeting between the parties and on 28.10.2021 agreeing to make refund, the OPs submitted a refund schedule. Again on 13.12 2021 deviating from the earlier refund schedule another ‘mutual understanding’ was executed on 13.12.2021.

In this process the Complainant received Rs.8,50,000/- from the OPs as refund.

Serampore P.S. again intervened in compliance of the order of the Ld. ACJM’s court, Serampore and another ‘mutual understanding’ was executed on 18.07.2022.

On that date another amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was refunded to the Complainant.

Allegedly, since then no further refund has been made by the OPs.

There was no reaction on the part of the OPs to the second legal notice sent by the Complainant on 09.03.2023.

Considering these as deficiency of service and unfair trade practice the Complainant approaches to the Commission with a prayer to impose direction upon the OPs to make refund of the balance amount of Rs.9,17,400/- with interest @18% for the period from 10.08.2015 to the date of payment of the principal amount, to pay Rs.5,00,000/- for causing mental trauma, agony and harassment, to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation, Rs.1,00,000/- towards litigation cost and any other relief as provided by law.

In view of the above discussion and on examination of available records it transpires that the complainant is a consumer as far as the provisions laid down under section 2(7)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 are concerned. The consumer appears to be a resident within the district of Hooghly.

It is apparent from the series of developments that there was continued cause of action.

The claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.50,00,000/-

Thus, this Commission has both territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.

The issues related to the questions whether there was any deficiency of service and whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief, being mutually inter-related, are taken together for convenient disposal.

The Complainant has annexed almost all the corroborating documents viz. allotment letter, memorandum of understanding, bills and ledger accounts issued by the OPs, G.D. lodged before the concerned P.S., agreement, all communications made to the OPs including legal notices, communications made to the Police authorities, refund schedule proposed by the OPs, FIR and ‘mutual understanding’.

Evidence on affidavit and brief notes of argument filed by the Complainant are almost replicas of the Complaint petition.

Defense case

Apart from filing the written version, OPs did not contest the case at any further stage of the proceedings of the case. In the process the instant case ran ex parte against all the OPs.

Now, so far as the written version is concerned it does not deserve any elaborate mention as the written version is only expression of suspicion in the veracity of the petitioner’s allegations and thorough denials and denials of the allegations leveled by the Complainant. No comprehensive rebuttals supported by substantiating documents could be placed before this Commission by the OP side.

Decision with reasons            

Materials on records are perused.

On meticulous examination of the complaint petition, documents annexed with the same and all other relevant aspects, it transpires that since the very booking of the property by the Complainant, there were falsifications, fraudulent activities and duplicity on the part of the OPs.OPs blatantly violated the terms and conditions of the agreement, memorandum of understanding and refund schedule.

In this connection the Complainant has relied upon two judgments delivered by the Hon’ble State Commission in which OPs were directed to make appropriate refunds and other costs were also imposed upon them. The OP real Estate Company in the instant case was none other than the same OP implicated in both the cases referred by the Complainant. Thus it transpires that the main mission of the OP real estate Company was to dupe people under the camouflage of a promoter.

Now, in view of the discussion made hereinabove and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this commission is of the view that there were gross deficiency of service and brazenly unfair trade practice by the OPs in the instant case.

Accordingly it is

ORDERED

that the complainant case no.103/2023 be and the same is allowed ex parte but in part.

The Opposite Parties jointly and/or severally are directed to make refund the balance amount of Rs.9,17,400/- along with interest @9% from the date of 17.06.2017 till payment of the principal amount.

Besides the OPs will be jointly and/or severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/ as compensation and further Rs.30,000/- towards litigation cost to the Complainant.

This order will have to be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of this order failing which OPs will have to pay Rs.30,000/- to the Consumer Legal Aid Account.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.

The final order will be available in the website www.confonet.nic.in.