Consumer Complaint No.111 of 2016
Date of filing: 30.6.2016 Date of disposal: 07.7.2017
Complainant: Rama Saha (Som), W/o. Chandan Som, residing at 22, Ganapati Avenue, Chitaranjan, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 331.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: 1. The Managing Director, Sunshine Infracorp India Ltd., having registered office at 6, Little Russel Street, Kolkata – 71.
2. The Officer-in-Charge, Sunshine Infracorp India Ltd., having Branch Office at 22, Ambuja Housing Complex, City Centre, Durgapur – 16.
3. Sunshine Infracorp India Ltd., having Branch Office at 6, Little Russel Street, Kolkata – 71, represented by its Managing Director.
4. Ardhendu Chatterjee, S/o. Late Ajit Chatterjee, Managing Director of Sunshine Infracorp India Ltd. of Bamunara, Goswamipara, PO: Bamunara, PS: Kanksa, District: Burdwan.
5. Karabi Chatterjee, W/o. Ardhendu Chatterjee of Bamunara, Goswamipara, PO: Bamunara, PS: Kanksa, District: Burdwan.
6. The Branch Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Ambedkar Sarani, Bengal Ambuja, City Centre, Durgapur – 16.
Present: Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.
Hon’ble Member: Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Tamal De.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 1 to 5: Expunged.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 6: Ld. Advocate, Srimanta Chandra.
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/S. 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service, as well as, unfair trade practice against the OP-1 to 5 praying for refund of the amount as paid by her.
The brief fact of the case of the complainant is that being allured with the leaflets distributed by the OP-4&5 in the name of Ops -1, 2&3 at Chittaranjan and Durgapur town whereby offer was made to the general public in the locality for the purpose of purchasing land to be developed for construction of flats of different sizes in different places at the vicinity of Durgapur. As per condition of the offer document the plots will be developed and infrastructure arranged and construction will be started within a period of three years after taking possession to the willing person and thereafter the sale deed will be registered in the name of the purchasers. The prospective consumer had an option to purchase the land in installments and agreement for sale was made only after receipt of 50% of the valuation payable either at a time or installments. The OP -4&5 also produced the entire documents including the master plans of some plots, sketches of some proposed flats to be developed in favour of the interested prospective and potential consumers including the complainant. Being agreed to purchase the schedule plot of land measuring an area of two cottas at the price of Rs, 5, 20,000=00, the complainant paid 50% of total valuation for the said land in monthly installment and booked the said plot by way of booking payment of Rs. 52,000=00 in cash on 14.01.2012. A certificate was issued accordingly in her favour on 24.4.2012. Thereafter the complainant was under obligation to pay 22 equal monthly installments of Rs. 13,000=00 and the same was accordingly paid by her. Receipts were issued by the authorized signatory of the OP- Company and both parties entered into an agreement on 06.3.2013. The Sunshine Infracorp India Limited Company was represented by its Managing Director i.e. the OP-4. But no agreement for sale was made by the Company even after lapse of three years from the date of said agreement, as well as, payment of more than half of the total cost. Complainant is ready to pay the due amount but the OP-4&5 did not take the said amount as they have left the place closing their offices and at present none is found in the office to hear the grievances of the consumers. The OP-4&5 i.e. Directors of the Company are the residents of the aforesaid address as set out in the cause title and they have collected a huge fund from the different consumers in the name of Sham Companies floated for the purpose of cheating and defrauding the consumers. The complainant very recently came to know that the questioned property has already been mortgaged with the OP-6 for taking loan as security by OP-4&5. As the premium/EMI towards the said loan have not been paid by the OP-4&5 , the OP-6 is demanding the loan amount through a legal manner and notice has been issued stating that in case of making payment of the due loan amount the property will taken in possession as early as possible as per condition of loan agreement. The complainant also came to know that the Director of the OP-4&5 are trying to sell out the unfinished flats to defrauded consumers and basically the said Ops floated the Company to deceive the general people which are an example of unfair trade practice. The complainant met the Bank Manager of the OP-6 on 13.01.2016. She has stated the entire fact regarding deficiency in service, as well as, unfair trade practice of the OP-4&5 and it was also stated by her that in the name of the OP-1 and artificial company was opened for the purpose of cheating and defraud the consumers. According to the complainant the OP-1 to 5 are jointly and severally liable for such deficiency in service, as well as, unfair trade practice as they have acted in a fraudulent manner towards the complainant, as well as, the general public. As the grievance of the complainant have not been redressed by the said Ops before coming to the court of law by filing this complaint the complainant has prayed for direction upon the OP-1 to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000=00 as compensation due to deficiency in service, as well as, unfair trade practice by its Manager i.e. OP-4, directing the OP-2 to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000=00 as compensation due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice because the OP-2 has grabbed money from the complainant illegally by producing forged document, directing OP-4 to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000=00 due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, directing the OP-5 to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000=00 as compensation due to deficiency in service, as well as, unfair trade practice, to pay Rs. 50,000=00 due to suffering of mental pain and agony, litigation of cost of Rs. 50,000=00 to her.
The petition of complaint has been contested by Op-6 by fling written version wherein it is stated that within the fourcorners of the complaint no allegation has been made out against this OP. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed against the OP-6. It is further sated by the OP-6 that after service of notice u/S. 13(2) & 13(4) of the SARFEASI Act dated 15.02.2016 and paper publication dated 17.02.2016 the present complainant in collusion with other Ops has brought the present complaint before this ld. Forum with a view to delay the said proceedings before the appropriate forum. According to the OP-6 as there is no deficiency in service, as well as, unfair trade practice on its part, the complaint cannot stand. It is further submitted by the OP-6 that as the OP-6 is not a service provider of the complainant, hence the complainant cannot be a consumer of OP-6.
No evidence is adduced by the complainant. The record reveals that for adducing evidence the complainant took seven adjournments. But the complainant did not adduce any evidence on 04.07.2017, wherein argument was also fixed. But on that date the complainant did not present, only the OP-6 was present through his ld. Advocate. On 04.7.2017 no prayer has been made by the complainant either praying for adducing evidence or adjournment, if any, hence we are inclined to take up the complaint for hearing based on the pleadings of the complaint supported by affidavit and documents filed by her.
During argument the ld. Counsel for the OP-6 has submitted that no allegation has been made out by the complainant against him as there is no consumer-service provider relationship by and between the complaint and the OP-6. It is further submitted by the OP-6 that complainant never hired or availed of any service from this OP either by making any consideration or promise was made for making payment for any service. Therefore, the complainant cannot be a consumer of the OP-6 and the complainant has made the OP-6 as a party in this proceeding unnecessarily. Due to unnecessary harassment of the Op-6, the OP-6 has prayed for adequate cost from the complainant.
Upon careful perusal of the record, documents filed by the complainant and hearing argument advanced by the OP-6, it is seen by us that actual service providers are the OP-1 to 5 from whom the complainant availed of services by making payment as the complainant being interested to buy a piece of land and for this purpose she entered into an agreement and paid a lumpsum amount towards the cost of the land. But ultimately the said land was not handed over or the OP -1 to 5 did not take any step to refund the amount as paid by her.
The record shows that the name of the OP-1 to 5 has been expunged from the cause title of the complaint vide order No. 11, dated 23.12.2016. The prayer portion of the complaint denotes that the complainant has sought for relief towards compensation from the OP-1 to 5; no relief has been sought for from the OP-6. Therefore, where the names of the OP-1 to 5 have already been expunged from the complaint, then the complainant is not entitled to get any amount from the said Ops. As no relief has been sought from the OP-6 and no allegation has been made against the OP-6, she is also not entitled to get any amount towards compensation from the OP-6. Therefore, the complaint fails.
Hence, it is
O r d e r e d
as the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service, as well as, unfair trade practice against the OP-6, hence the complaint is dismissed against the OP-6 without any cost.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
Dictated and corrected by me.
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha) (Silpi Majumder)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
