Date of filing: 04.04.2017 Date of disposal: 12.12.2017
Complainant: Sri Anand Bahadur Singh, S/o. Late Bhagwat
Singh, residing at River Road, Qr. No. 8/B, PO: Chittaranjan Township, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 365.
Opposite Party: 1. The Director/Branch-in-Charge, M/s. Hahnemann Housing & Development (P) Ltd., Branch Office at Sanjib Sarani, Aesby More, Durgapur – 713 201, District: Burdwan.
2. Hahnemann Housing & Development (P) Ltd., B-16, Katjunagar, Beside Katjunagar Swarnamoyee Bidyapath, PS: Jadavpur, Kolkata – 700 032 (represented by its Director Kalidas Mukherjee).
Present:
Hon’ble President: Smt. Jayanti Maitra (Ray).
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Nivedita Ghosh.
Appeared for the Complainant(s): Ld. Advocate, Soumalya Ganguli.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 1&2: None (ex parte)
J U D G E M E N T
Complainant Sri Anand Bahadur Singh has filed the present application under Section 12 (1) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum for refund of Rs. 3,88,438=00, including interest @18% p.a. from 20.01.2016, as well as, Rs. 1,00,000=00 for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and also Rs. 10,000=00 as cost of litigation against Opposite Party, which is private limited company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at 3/3, Poddar Nagar and a Branch office at Sanjib Sarani, Aesby More, Durgapur.
The case of the complainant is that an agreement executed between the complainant with opposite party for construction and development of land proposed to be sold. As the Ops have failed to hand over the said developed land to the complainant as per agreement, complainant has compelled to file the present claim application claiming Rs. 4,98,438=00 including cost of litigation and as per provision of Rule 9A of the Consumer Protection Act, a demand draft for Rs. 200=00 bearing No. 204476, dated 03.04.2017 drawn in favour of the Hon’ble President, DCDRF, Burdwan and as per agreement complainant intended to purchase a piece of 2 cottah of developed land bearing Plot No. 307, under Mouza-Talberiya, JL No. 75, Dag No. 262, Khatian No. 686, within P.S. Salanpur from the OPs on completion of basic infrastructural development work like roads, sanitation, sewerage and OPs also agreed to prepare deed of conveyance within specified time and accordingly complainant booked the said piece of land and OP also issued certificate of booking dated 22.01.2013, valid up to 22.02.2016, after received Rs. 92,000=00 and money receipt of being No. 304602, dated 15.01.2012 issued by the OP.
Further case is that subsequently a bipartite agreement dated 14.8.2013 executed between parties represented by Sri Karunamoy Sinha but OP failed to carried out the agreed infrastructure development work in the said piece of land, neither registered the deed of conveyance (sale) nor refunded back the value/cost of land which deposited through EMI @Rs. 10,222=00 p.m.
Further case is that Op agreed to refund the deposited value or cost along with admissible interest/bonus accrued thereon and as such asked the complainant to submit original documents and the complainant also submitted all the original documents to the OP and the OP provided a receipt dated 20.01.2016.
Thereafter, when the complainant personally visited the Branch Office of the OP at Durgapur several times after 21.01.2016 to ask about refund and to bring that to the notice of Branch-in-Charge of OP, the Branch-in-Charge of the said OP with a vague verbal assurance has sent back the complainant stating that the amount will be credited in the complainant’s bank account soon through NEFT. But no amount was remitted or credited in the bank account of the complainant yet which itself proves the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
Complainant has also sent notice upon Ops after filing present claim application and it appears that OP-1 received summon but failed to appeared. The summon of OP-2 returned with postal remark “left”. Thereafter the complainant amended the address of OP-2 and the notice was sent to OP-2, who was also received the notice but did not appear to contest the case. Accordingly the case fixed for ex parte hearing against both Ops.
Now point for consideration is whether claimant at all entitled to get any relief against the Opposite Parties?
Decision with reasons:-
To prove the allegation against Ops., the complainant has filed their evidence-in-chief through affidavit along with documents which are Xerox copies of Booking Certificate dated 22.01.2013, money receipt dated 15.01.2013 issued by OP (Annexure B/1 & B/2), Xerox copy of bipartite agreement dated 14.08.2013 (Annexure-C), Xerox copies of money receipts of EMI @Rs. 10,222=00 from 27,02.2013 to 26.6.2015 (Annexure-D series), receipt of depositing original documents to the Ops (Annexure – E series).
Now it appears that complainant claimed as consumer u/S. 2(1)(d) (ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986 and a bipartite agreement executed between the parties for construction and development of land proposed to be sold after its development to the complainant for consideration, who claims to be the owner of the said land and lodged the complaint before the Hon’ble Forum is a Consumer Dispute u/S. 2 (1)(e) of the C.P. Act. It also appears that complainant has able to prove that agreement executed between him with the OP under some terms and conditions and also able to prove that OP failed to fulfill the said terms and conditions either by executing deed of conveyance or by refund all money which received from the complainant.
It also appears that complainant has also able to prove that OP agreed to pay money and for that asked the complainant to produce the original papers and as such the complainant produced all the papers but failed to pay.
After perusing all documents as produced by the complainant, it is clear that there is no dispute that complainant able to prove that he is a consumer and OP failed to render service by obey the terms and conditions of agreement, at the same time it is clear from the attitude of both Ops that they have received summons but not contested the complaint by filing their written version and as such they are aware about the present claim case but intentionally kept themselves mum as they are only wants to keep watch about the order of present Forum.
Accordingly, it is clear that there is no dispute that the complainant is able to prove without any hesitation that the OP are liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, so, complainant is entitled to get back the money deposited to the account of the OP and also entitled to get compensation towards deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, harassment and mental agony and also entitled to get litigation cost.
Hence, the complaint succeeds.
It is
O r d e r e d
that the present claim application being No. 55/2017 be and the same is allowed ex parte against the Ops with cost.
OP- 1&2 are hereby directed to pay Rs. 3,88,438=00 (Rs. Three lac Eighty Eight thousand Four hundred Thirty Eight) only either jointly or severally to the complainant along with interest @18% p.a. from 20.01.2016 (as per bipartite agreement dated 14.08.2013) till the date of making payment of the said amount and the OP-1&2 are further directed to pay either jointly or severally Rs. 50,000=00 (Rs. Fifty thousand) only as compensation towards deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and also litigation cost of Rs. 5,000=00 (Rs. Five thousand) only within 30 (thirty) days from the date of passing this award, in default, complainant is at liberty to put the entire award in execution as per provisions of law.
Plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost according to law.
(Jayanti Maitra (Ray)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Nivedita Ghosh)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Nivedita Ghosh)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
