Date of filing: 27.11.2017 Date of disposal: 13.06.2018
Complainant: Arup Karmakar, S/o. Shanti Ram Karmakar, resident of MEH-7, Merabai Road, “A” Zone, Durgapur, Dist: Burdwan (West), PIN – 713 204.
Opposite Party: 1. The Director, Hahnemann Housing & Development (P) Ltd., Having its office Branch Office at Durgapur, Sanjib Sarani, Aesby More, Durgapur, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 201.
2. Hahnemann Housing & Development (P) Ltd., represented by its Director, Having its office Branch Office at Durgapur, Sanjib Sarani, Aesby More, Durgapur, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 201.
3. Kalidas Mukherjee, S/o. Late Rabi Lochan Mukherjee, Director of Hahnemann Housing & Development (P) Ltd., having his residence at Beliatore, PO. & PS: Beliatore, Dist: Bankura, Pin – 722 203.
Present:
Hon’ble President: Smt. Jayanti Maitra (Ray).
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Nivedita Ghosh.
Hon’ble Member: Dr. Tapan Kumar Tripathy.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Suvro Chakraborty.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 1,2&3: None (ex parte)
J U D G E M E N T
This is a case u/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 against unfair trade practice and directing an award of Rs. 2,25,000=00 along with agreed rate of interest, Rs. 1,00,000=00 towards mental pain, agony and harassment, Rs. 20,000=00 towards litigation cost.
The complainant’s case in short is that hearing about the O.Ps. plot selling project SANTIBAN-VI, he contacted the O.Ps. and came to learn that the O.Ps. wanted to sell the plots of land at Rs. 2, 25,000=00. So, the complainant made a booking for purchasing a plot with Rs. 45,000=00 on 23.11.2011. On receiving the amount the O.Ps. issued a certificate which showed that the O.Ps had registered the booking of the plot. On 16.11.2012 the O.Ps. made an agreement for sale and issued a book of EMI that was to be paid in 36 installments, which the complainant paid in between the time but the O.Ps. could not complete all necessary documents of the plot within 36 months. Then, being depressed, the complainant desired to withdraw the booking and requested the O.Ps. to refund the paid amount. After that he submitted all the necessary documents before the O.Ps. on 30.06.2015 and the O.Ps. issued a receipt for that. But unfortunately, even after completing all the necessary actions, the complainant did not get the refund.
Here, the O.Ps. neither appeared nor submitted any W.V. in favour of them. Hence, they are considered as ex parte.
Decision with Reasons:
Undisputedly, the complainant is a consumer of the O.Ps. According to the proofs submitted by the complainant, the O.Ps. failed to hand over the plot in spite of its full payment. Moreover, when the complainant intended to get refund, they could not provide it although all documents were submitted timely by the complainant. Thus, the complainant succeeds in contesting the case.
Hence, it is
Ordered
that the present Consumer Complaint being No. 235/2017 be and the same is allowed ex parte against the Ops with cost. The O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to pay Rs. 2, 25,000=00 either jointly or severally to the complainant along with interest @12% per annum from 15.11.2015 to till date of realization and the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000=00 as mental pain and harassment and Rs. 3,000=00 as litigation cost within 45 days from the date of passing of this order, in default, the complainant is at liberty to put the entire award in execution as per provisions of law.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.
Dictated & Corrected by me: (Jayanti Maitra (Ray)
President
(Tapan Kumar Tripathy) DCDRF, Burdwan
President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Tapan Kumar Tripathy) (Nivedita Ghosh)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
