Judgement
SHRI REYAZUDDIN KHAN, MEMBER
This is an application U/S.35 of the C.P. Act, 2019.The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant allured by the advertisement in the website and in the form of booklet for the sale of land in the name of the project “Unayan Garden” and accordingly the complainant contacted the office of the OP regarding purchasing of land and its terms and conditions. The complainant was not satisfied with the right title of the land documents first but later agreed on verbal assurance of the OP and then the complainant entered into an agreement for sale with the OP on 22.01.2011 for purchasing a plot of land in the project of “Unayan Garden” measuring 5 Cottahs in the “B” being numberd as B-148.1 and the total consideration amount was fixed RS,35,00,000/ (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs) only and that amount payable by 48 months from the date of execution of agreement for sale. Out of total consideration amount the complainant has already paid Rs 31,49,986/- (Rupees Thirty One Lakh Forty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Six) only The complainant stated that the copy of the agreement was not supplied to him.To the utter most surprising when the complainant visited the plot of land and found the no development work took place as per period of completion of the work as 48 months.The OP made several false statements regarding the development of work.Later,The OP had given proposal to the complainant that instead of the subject plot to book another plot in the same area as alternative measures.The complainant agreed with that proposal of the OP as they have invested a huge amount towards the purchase of plot in “B” Block.The complainant entered into another agreement for sale with the OP on 19.04.2017 bearing No.AA-38 of the same project measuring 6 Cottah and amount fixed Rs,42,00,000/- ( Rupees Forty Two Lakhs) only and other conditions remain same as earlier.Out of the total consideration amount of Rs,42,00,000 / the complainant have already paid Rs,31,49,986 and the balance amount of Rs,10,50,014/ to be paid in 18 monthly instalments. Accordingly to the payment schedule the complainant paid Rs,1,16,666/ (Rupees One Lakh Sixteen Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Six) only.The complainant further stated that he visited the site to ascertain the development of works and found no development work has been done as promised by the OP.Later,after enquiry about the subject plot of land (AA-38) from competent authority of the Govt.of West Bengal it came to know that the plot of land (AA-38) substantially a water body oriented and agriculture area and no permanent construction, building or conversion of land will be allowed in the said land as per existing Acts and Rules governing East Kolkata Wetland Authority. The complainant stated that the OP suppressed the material facts in regard to the title of the said plot of land and executed for sale with the intention to grab the money from the intending purchaser. Being dissatisfied with the acts of the OP the complainant requested verbally to refund the entire deposited amount as there is no sign of development in the subject plot in the present situation. Several request have been made but the OP did not response in this issue of the complainant. The complainant gave legal notice through his advocate on 16.11.2021 but the OP not responded. Finally, the complainant prayed before the commission that to refund the deposited amount of Rs,32,66,652/- only towards purchase the plot of land with @12% ,a compensation of Rs,2 Lakh and Rs,25,000/ as litigation cost.
OP has contested the case by filing their WV contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable in law and fact,have no cause of action and is liable to be dismissed with cost. OP stated that the agreement based upon which the instant complaint has been filed is not properly stamped and the said document cannot be looked into even for a collateral purpose.The complainant booked a plot of land at the total consideration amount of Rs,35,00,000/ ( Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs ) only being Rs,7,00,000/ per Cottah. The said plot was situated in Mouza-Kulberia,P.S K.L.C District-24 Parganas (South).The complainant did not pay the monthly instalments on time after execution of agreement dated-22.01.2011.Later, the complainant decided to purchase bigger sized plot of 6 Cottah by submitting a letter on 23.03.2017 being plot no.AA-38 of Unnayan Garden and cancelling the previous plot no.B-148/1. The total consideration amount was fixed Rs,42,00,000 by an agreement on 19.04.2017.The amount paid by the complainant for plot no.B-148/1 was Rs,31,49,986/.It was recorded in the agreement dated 19.04.2017 that after adjustment of Rs,31,49,986 which was paid against plot no.B-148/1 net amount to be paid against plot no.AA-38 would be Rs,10,50,014 and the said amount to be paid by 18 equal monthly instalments @ Rs,58,333/ per EMI.The complainant wanted bigger sized plot and with that intention they booked the plot no AA-38 measuring 6 Cottahs. of land by cancelling the plot no.B-148/1 of 5 Cottahs in size. Only after payment of Rs,1,16,666 out of Rs,10,50,014/- the complainant did not pay any amount. OP denied that the complainant made any enquiry from the competent authority of Govt .of West Bengal or the land in question is substantially a water body oriented area or no permanent construction including residential building or that no conversion of land use will be allowed in the said land as per existing Acts and Rules governing East Kolkata Wetland Authority. OP denied that the complainant made any verbal request for refund of the money. OP further submitted that the complainants are not consumers because the transactions made between the parties was relating to sale of plot land which does not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. facts and circumstances stated by the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
Points for Determination
In the light of the above pleadings, the following points necessarily have come up for determination.
1) Whether the OP is deficient in rendering proper service to the Complainant?
2) Whether the OP has indulged in unfair trade practice?
3) Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
Point Nos. 1 to 3 :-
The above mentioned points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity in discussion.
We have travelled over the documents placed on record. The complainants have filed his Evidence supported by affidavit.. Complainant and the OP have tendered their Evidence on Affidavit. Both have replied to the questionnaire set forth by their adversaries. Both have submitted their BNAs also.As per the documents annexed by the complainant with the complaint petition .
We have travelled over all the documents placed on record. Facts remains that the complainants being convinced to purchase a plot of land B-148/1 in the projects of “Unnayan Garden”measuring of 5 Cottah in B block at the total consideration amount of Rs,35,00,000/ which was to be paid in 48 monthly instalments by an execution of agreement for sale dated 22.01.2011.After considerable span of time when the complainant visited the plot of land and found that no development work was done. The` complainant inquired about the real facts for non completion of the development of plot verbally but the OP declined to answer the reason,instead the OP offered another plot in the same area with the total consideration amount of Rs,42,00,000/.
The question of the complainants who are not the consumers as per Consumer Protection Act raises by the OP clarifies that as per the Agreement of Allotment dated.19.04.2017 where it is mentioned that “The Company shall develop the said land on behalf of the allottee with construction with construction of metal road to reach the plots of land along with side drains &other necessary works pertaining to the basic infrastructure which shall be completed within the stipulated period”.It established from the version of the agreement that the complainants are very within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act,2019.
The Issue of the Agreement of Allotment properly not stamped as mentioned by the OP in his WV but it should be dealt at the time of taking/finalization of consideration amount.
So,the allegations are no leg to stand at this stage.
The complainant mentioned that “having no alternative the complainants were compelled to agree with that proposal of the opposite party as they have invested a huge amount towards the purchase of plot in B Block”.The complainant failed to issue any letter to the OP regarding the matter,rather communicated verbally to the OP and accepted the new proposal by an agreement for sale dated 19.04.2017.
As the OP claim in their WV that the complainant wanted bigger sized plot so he requested for another plot and accordingly they offered AA-38.So,no written evidence submitted by any of the complainant or the OP.
The complainant after rigorous enquiry from the competent authority from the Govt.of West Bengal came to know that the land in question is substantially a water body oriented area(part) and agriculture area(part) and no permanent building or conversion of land use will be allowed in the said land as per existing Acts and Rules Governing East Kolkata Wetland Authority. It is evident from the record in website as well as from the book “The East Kolkata Wetlands (Conservation and Management Act,2006) as Amended by The East Kolkata Wetlands Conservation and Management (Amendment)Act,2017 “mentioned in Table 32,Sheet No.2 (See column (5) of schedule 1) Mouza Kulberia Dag No.649 is both Substantially water body oriented area and Agricultural area.So,it is clear that the development works in the said plot of land is not possible right now.
Being dissatisfied with acts of the OP the complainants requested for refund of entire deposited money as there is no chance for any development of the said plot .It is established that the OP suppresses the material facts related to the title deed of the land.OP had not submitted any documents to counter the above mentioned fact.
It is an admitted fact that the complainant had partly paid the consideration amount Rs,32,66,652/- but the development of plot still remains pending till date which shows the negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The OP has filed written version.Despite the above allegations of the complainant is deemed to have been admitted as correct . On the other hand the OP has submitted that the complainants have accepted the terms of and condition of the GTC by signing on them.The complainant have made considerable delay in payments of instalments for which the complainants are liable to pay an interest to the OP but no claim is made by the OP for interest in delay of payments and as such no document annexed to this issue.In absence of any explanation for failure to comply with the stipulation of work in question, we have no hesitation in concluding that the OP has committed deficiency in service and also have indulged in unfair trade practice. The Consumer Protection Act came into being in the year 1986. It is the benevolent piece of legislation to protect the consumers from exploitation. The spirit of the benevolent legislation cannot be overlooked and its object is not to be frustrated. The complainants have invested huge some of money to the OP for his plot of land purpose. The OP failed and neglected to perform since the hand over of the plot of the land in question to the complainant and the act and conduct of the OP are a clear case of deception, which resulted in the injury and loss of opportunity to the complainant. The complainant cannot be wait indefinitely to get their plat of land.The complainants have suffered mental agony, pain and harassment. It is settled principle of law that the compensation should be commensurate with loss of suffered and it should be just, fair and reasonable and not arbitrary. To get relief, the complainants have to wage a long drawn and tedious legal battle. In these circumstances, the complainants are entitled to get relief/reliefs, compensation and litigation cost.
Keeping in view of the above facts and circumstances of the present case we are of the considered opinion that the Complainant has established the case against the OP
In the result, the Consumer Complaint succeeds .
Hence,
Ordered
That the Complaint Case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP with the following directions:-
1.OP is directed to refund the deposited amount of Rs,32,66,652/- alongwith interest @ 9% from 19.04.2017 till its realization .
2.The OP is further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony to the complainant.
3.The OP is also directed to pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as litigation costs
The above orders are to be complied with by the OP within 60 days from the date of this order .If OP transgress to comply the order of this commission the complainant is at liberty to put the matter into execution.
The judgment be uploaded to the website of the Commission forthwith for perusal of the parties. Copy of the Judgement be supplied to the parties free of cost as per the C.P. Act.