SRI SWAPAN KUMAR MAHANTY, PRESIDENT
This is an application u/s-12 of the C. P. Act, 1986.
The case of the complainants in short is that the complainants entered into an Agreement for Allotment dated 18/11/2010 with the O.P.-1 Unnayan Builders Pvt. Ltd. for purchasing a land measuring about 7 cottah 0 Chhittak 0 sq. ft. correspondence to Dag No.-677, KhatianNo.1358 under J.L. No.-7, being Plot No.-B-229 under Mouja-Kulberia, within the jurisdiction of P.S. at a total price of Rs.42,00,000/-. The complainants further alleged that they have paid Rs.8,40,000/- to the O.P.-1as consideration amount and the O.P.-1 issued money receipts to that effect. As per terms of the Agreementit was agreed between the parties that the possession of the land would be handed over to the complainants within 48 months from the date of execution of the Agreement for Allotment and the O.Ps. agreed to deliver all legal papers to them within a reasonable period but ultimately no papers were handed over to them . Finding no other alternative, the complainants were compelled to stop paying of EMI to the O.P.-1 and on local enquiry they came to learnt that the land in question belongs to SudhangshuMondal and his other relatives. The land in question is agricultural land not converted to Bastu land. Knowing the aforesaid facts the complainants had been to the office of the O.Ps. but the O.Ps. refused to talk with them and inform that they will give the possession of the land in question within a month. Their all efforts, requests, good gesture were in vain and the complainants were compelled to wrote a letter to the O.Ps. requesting them to refund the consideration amount of Rs.8,42,000/- along with 12 percent interest thereon from the date of receiving the said letter after treating the Agreement as cancelled. That on 10/05/2016 the complainant-1 received a letter from O.Ps. wherein they have expressed their inability to cancel the booking and to refund the money in near future as their company is suffering from paucity of fund. The complainants further alleged that O.Ps. are deficient in service and the attitude of the O.ps. are tantamount to unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint.
In spite of service of notices the O.Ps. did not turn up to contest the complaint. As such the case has been proceeded ex-parte against them.
Points for Determination
- Have the O.Ps. deficient in rendering service to the complainants ?
- Have the O.Ps. indulged in unfair trade practice?
- Are complainants entitled to get reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Points No.-1 to 3.
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.
We have travelled over the documents on record i.e. photocopy of the Agreement of Allotment dated 18/11/2010, ready reckoner for EMIs, money receipts, letter dated 19/04/2016 of the complainant-1 addressed to the O.P.-1, letter dated 10/05/2016 of O.P.-1 including the Mouza identification, information of plot, Khatian and the order of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta passed in WP-486 of 2012. From the documents on record we find that the complainants entered into an Agreement for Allotment dated 18/11/2010 with the O.Ps.for purchasing a land appertaining to Plot No.-B-229 measuring about 7 Cottah 0 Chhitak 0 sq. ft. corresponding to Dag No. 677, Khatian No.-1358 under J.L. No.-7, within K.L.C. P.S. at a total consideration of Rs.42,00,000/-. It appears from the money receipts that the complainants have already paid Rs.8,40,000/- to the O.P.-1 as part payment of the consideration amount. It also appears that the O.Ps. in spite of receiving consideration amount did not convert the land into Bastu. The complainants approached the O.Ps. on several occasions vide letters on different dates in this regard but the O.Ps. failed to respond any such letters and slept over the matter. It appears from the letter dated 10/05/2016 that the Authorized Signatory of O.P.-1 accepted the request of the complainants for cancellation of the Agreement for Allotment and assured to refund the consideration amount but till date they did not refund the consideration amount with statutory interest thereon. It appears that the O.P.-1 company has received the amount ofRs.8,40,000/- from the complainants and utilized the money for its own gain and purpose without delivery of the possession of the land in question after convert the land in to Bastu. We think that the O.Ps,.have put up the gesture of deficiency of service and they have also adopted unfair trade practice in receiving the money from the complainants and doing nothing for the said project work.
There is no evidence on the part of the O.Ps. tocontrovert the version of the complainants adduced in their evidence. The evidence of the complainants remain in unchallenged and uncontroverted. In absence of any contrary and controverting materials on record and having regard to the documents on record, we think that the complainants have been able to establish their case. Therefore, we are constrained to hold that the O.Ps. have exhibited a gesture of unfair trade practice as well as deficiency of service. S such the complainants are entitled to get the reliefs as prayed.
All the points under determination are answered in favour of the complainant.
In result, the complaint succeeds in part.
Hence,
Ordered
That the complaint case be and the same is allowed ex-parte in part against the O.Ps. withlitigation cost of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) only.
The O.Ps. are directed to refund Rs.8,40,000/-(Rupees Eight Lakhs Forty Thousand) only together with interest at the rate of 10 percent p.a. from the date of payment till realization within the 60 days from the date of this order.
The O.Ps. are further directed to pay Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) only to the complainants as compensation on account of harassment and causing mental agony within the stipulated period.
The O.Ps.are also directed to deposit Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) only to this Forum as punitive damage for practicing unfair trade within the stipulated period.
Liberty be given the complainants to put the order in execution, if the O.Ps. transgress to comply the order.
