West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/562/2014

1. Smt. Ratna Bhattacharya, W/O- Biswanath Bhattacharya. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Director, India Green Reality Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Bidhan Ch. Mondal.

22 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , JUDGES’ COURT, ALIPORE KOLKATA-700 027

 

         C.C. CASE NO. _562_ OF ___2014__

 

DATE OF FILING : 19.11.2014     DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 22 .7.2015__

 

Present                        :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :    Mrs. Sharmi Basu & Jinjir Bhattacharya

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT             :    1. Smt. Ratna Bhattacharya,w/o Biswanath Bhattacharya

                                                2.Sri Biswanath Bhattacharya,s/o late Sudhir Bhattacharya

                                                Both of A-9, Duplex-2, Sugam Park, P.O Narendrapur,P.S. Sonarpur, Kol-103.                                        

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                            :   The Director, India Green Reality Pvt. Ltd. BA/30, Rajdanga Main Road, Near

           Gitanjali Stadium, Kolkata – 107.

________________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

 

Mrs. Sharmi Basu, Member

            The instant case has been filed by the complainant under section  12 of the C.P Act, 1986 with allegation of deficiency in service against the O.Ps.

            In a nutshell the case of the complainant is that the complainants had hardly needed an accommodation for their family members and respond to the advertisement in the internet published by the O.P. The complainant intended to purchase a bungalow from the O.P at a total consideration of Rs.31,54,820/- for super built area of 1700 sq.ft with land measuring 2 cottahs at Green Land, Makrampur, Sonarpur, Kolkata – 150 Dist. South 24-Parganas . He paid Rs.4,83,333/- on different dates to the O.P. The O.P  acknowledged the same but delayed to complete the project and delayed to hand over possession ,for which complainant cancelled the booking by sending a letter on 10.09.2014 and requested to refund the money paid to the O.P. But the O.P neither  has given possession nor refund the money till date. The complainants have tried to settle the matter through a mediatory procedure at Consumer Affairs Department but the O.P did not pay any heed to resolve the matter .Therefore, the complainants prefer to initiate this case before this Forum.

            O.P has appeared before this Forum through Ld. Advocate by filing written version denying all the material allegations raised against the O.P and inter alia contended that as the total project area is 106 acres which is very huge and vast ,the development work has not been completed and also submits that the O.P company is facing financial stringent condition for carrying out the development works of the project and lastly O.P has prayed for dismissal of the instant case.

            Considering four corners of the instant case following points are in limelight for discussion:

1. Whether the complainant is a Consumer or not.
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps or not.
3. Whether the complainant is eligible to get relief as prayed for partly or fully.

Decision with reasons

            All the points are taken together for discussion as they are interlinked.

            In the instant case the complainant entered into an agreement for sale with the O.P /developer for purchasing a bungalow for residential purpose and paid an amount towards the consideration of the suit property. The suit property is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

            Therefore, the complainant is “intending consumer” and the O.P/developer is ‘Service provider” under section 2(1)(D)(II) AND 2(1) (o) of the C.P Act, 1986 ,respectively and the case is adjudicable by this Forum.

            Thus the point no.1 is discussed and the same is in favour of the complainant.

            After going through vividly every nook and corner of the records of instant case in its entirety and hearing argument from Ld. Counsels of both sides it is crystal clear that the complainant paid Rs.4,83,333/- as earnest money to the O.P towards the total consideration of the property in question and through the agreement for sale was signed by the parties to this case but till the date of hearing neither the O.P handed over the possession nor executed and registered the deed of conveyance of the suit property in the name of the complainant. On the contrary O.P has submitted that as the total project is vast and a huge area of land is needed to be developed before construction of building of the project and also for paucity of fund, O.P will not be able to hand over the property in question to the complainant very shortly. Therefore, considering balance of convenience and inconvenience of the O.P and considering above mentioned facts and circumstances we have no hesitation to hold that the O.P is liable for inaction and deficiency in rendering services towards the complainant/consumer.

            In this regard we are also relying upon the remarkable decision of Hon’ble National Commission  reported in 2015(2)CPR 384 (NC) filed by the Ld. Counsel for the complainants  where  the Hon’ble National Commission  has been pleased to observe that “Complainant cannot be deprived from getting refund of money if project is not completed for a long period”.  So, the O.P is liable to refund the amount to the complainants which was paid by the complainant to the O.P towards the consideration of the suit property and to compensate the financial loss .

            Keeping in mind the essence of the observation of the Hon’ble National Commission , it is also beyond doubt that being an intending consumer, with a dream to be the owner of a bungalow of his choice at a suitable location the complainant entered into the agreement for sale and paid earnest money amounting to Rs.4,83,333/- but due to inaction and deficiency of service of the O.P even after long years , complainant had to suffer mental agony, harassment and financial loss. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant should be compensated by the O.P.

            Thus the point nos. 2 and 3 are discussed and both are in favour of the complainants.

            Therefore, the complaint case succeeds.

            Hence,

                                                                        Ordered

That the  case be and the same is allowed on contest with cost.

The O.P is directed to refund Rs.4,83,333/- to the complainant.

The O.P is also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Fifty  Thousands) only to the complainant as compensation for mental agony, harassment and financial loss due to inaction and deficiency in service of the O.P and to pay Rs.3,000/-(three thousands) as litigation cost.

All the above orders should be complied with within 30 days from this date of order, failing which, O.P should pay Rs.100/- per diem after the stipulated period till the full and final compliance of the order in its entirety.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the parties free of cost.

 

Member                                                           Member                                               President

Dictated and corrected by me

 

                        Member

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The judgement in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

 

Ordered

That the  case be and the same is allowed on contest with cost.

The O.P is directed to refund Rs.4,83,333/- to the complainant.

The O.P is also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Fifty  Thousands) only to the complainant as compensation for mental agony, harassment and financial loss due to inaction and deficiency in service of the O.P and to pay Rs.3,000/-(three thousands) as litigation cost.

All the above orders should be complied with within 30 days from this date of order, failing which, O.P should pay Rs.100/- per diem after the stipulated period till the full and final compliance of the order in its entirety.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the parties free of cost.

 

Member                                                           Member                                               President