J U D G E M E N T

                 Claiming himself as a consumer, under the C. P. Act, 1986, the complainant has sought for interference of this Forum in respect of fact complained of.   

                 In summarizing the case stated in the complaint, is that, being interested to purchase a residential flat the Complainant had booked a flat, as described in the ‘Schedule’ of the complaint, by depositing a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- only  by two cheques of 50,000/- only each, as booking amount, to the Opposite Parties on 23.02.2013 on issuing the ‘Money Receipt’.

                 Thereafter the Complainant moved from Bank to Bank for taking a loan for the rest consideration amount for purchasing a residential flat but surprisingly all the Bank concerns had refused and expressed their inability to sanction any loan in favour of the Complainant for purchasing the said flat in the project of the Opposite Parties, as the Opposite Parties are the defaulted list and/or black listed. The Complainant went to the local Manager of the Opposite Party who asked him that if the Complainant was agreed to pay more 2% interest per month then that Manager can arrange the loan from a different place but the Complainant had refused the said proposal as he is incapable to pay such huge interest and asked to refund the paid advanced amount from the Opposite Parties and the said Manager of the Opposite Parties agreed to refund the said advanced booking amount to the Complainant.  

                 The Complainant repeatedly requested the Opposite Parties to refund the paid advanced amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- only which the Opposite Parties agreed to pay but subsequently the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the Complainant and ultimately did not refund the same till to date, what amounts to deficiency and negligent manner of service on the part of the Opposite Parties for which the Complainant has file the instant case and asked for compensation seeking adequate redressal.  

                 Resisting the Complaint, the Opposite Parties filed Written Version for denying the contentions and all material allegations made by the complainant in the Petition of Complaint and stating inter alia, that the Complainant has no cause of action to file the instant case, is not maintainable and is barred by limitation.                                                                                    

                The specific case, as stated by the Opposite Parties, in crisp, is that, the Opposite Parties is the Promoter and Developer by profession and after got the building plan sanctioned from the Barasat Municipality had started the construction works of multistoried building on the suit property. The Complainant being satisfied in all respect and all relevant papers regarding the project and investments and all other common facilities and expressed his desire to invest and accordingly the Complainant had invested the money to the Opposite Parties for getting highest interest amount. The Complainant was deliberately defaulted payment terms as stipulated in the scheme and violated the terms and conditions with regard to the payment of consideration money. The Complainant deliberately and intentionally suppressed the material fact before the Forum. The present Opposite Parties had performed his part of duties in respect of the ‘Agreement for Sale’ and is always ready and willing to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance, but the Complainant with an ulterior motive intentionally and deliberately has filed the instant case with an intention to get some illegal benefit from the Opposite Parties.

                 Thus, no question of deficiency of service does arise at all by the Opposite Parties and he has denied any negligence or/ and deficiency in rendering service on his part towards the Complainant for which the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for and the Opposite Parties prayed for dismissal of the instant case.

                                           Points for Determination

            1.  Is the complaint maintainable under the C. P. Act ?

            2.  Was there any negligence or deficiency in service

                                      on the part of the O.Ps ?

            3.  Is the complainant entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?

                                               Decision with Reasons

                 All the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience and brevity.

                 The main dispute between the Complainant and the Opposite Party is that whether the Opposite Party is liable to refund the said advanced amount paid by the Complainant to the Complainant or not.

                 We have carefully considered and scrutinized the submission made before us by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant and also the Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Parties and also critically perused all the material documents on record.

                 On overall evaluation of the argument advanced by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant and the Ld. Advocate of the Opposite Parties and on critical appreciation of the material on record, it is evident that admittedly the Complainant had booked a flat, as described in the ‘Schedule’ of the complaint, by depositing a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- only  by two cheques of 50,000/- only each, as booking amount, to the Opposite Parties on 23.02.2013 on issuing the ‘Money Receipt’ which is also revealed from the photocopies of the documents filed by the Complainant and admitted by the Opposite Parties.

                 Manifestly, the record reveals that after booking the said flat by paying the booking amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- only the Complainant has failed to arrange the rest amount of consideration money by taking the loan from any Bank concern as all the Bank concerns had refused and expressed their inability to sanction any loan in favour of the Complainant for purchasing the said flat in the project of the Opposite Parties, as the Opposite Parties are the defaulted list and/or black listed.

                 It is revealed from the case record that the Opposite Parties admitted to receive the said alleged amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- only from the Complainant and failed to disclose any cogent reason as to why the Bank concern had refused to sanction the loan in favour of the Complainant who was in intention to purchase the flat in the project of the Opposite Parties. As such the Bank concern had refused to sanction the loan on the ground that the Opposite Parties are black listed and/or defaulted in whose project the Complainant was indented to purchase his residential said flat.

                 Moreover the Opposite Parties has stated the double defence in their Written Version. Once they stated that the Complainant had invested the said money to the Opposite Parties for getting highest interest amount and on the other hand the Opposite Parties also stated that the Complainant was deliberately defaulted payment terms as stipulated in the scheme and violated the terms and conditions with regard to the payment of consideration money which clearly denotes that the Complainant had booked a residential flat by paying the booking amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- only to the Opposite Parties not for the investment purpose.

                 So, the unanimous decision of the Forum is that thought he Complainant was failed to pay the rest consideration amount due to default of the Opposite Parties and claimed for refund of the paid advanced amount, the Opposite Parties are still liable to refund the same to the Complainant.

                 Therefore, in light of the above analysis, we are inclined to hold that the Complainant has successfully proved his case and is entitled to get the relief as prayed for and consequently the points for determination are decided in affirmative.

                In short, the Complainant deserves success.

                In the result, we proceed to pass                                                                            

                                               O R D E R

                 That the case be and the same is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party No. 1, 2 and 3 with cost of Rs. 5,000/- only payable by all the Opposite Parties jointly and severally within one month from the date of this ‘Order’.

                 That all the Opposite Parties jointly and severally is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- only without any interest in favour of the Complainant within one month and fifteen days from the date of this ‘Order’.

                 That all the Opposite Parties jointly and severally is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- only as compensation to the Complainant for harassment and mental agony within one month and fifteen days from the date of this ‘Order’.

                 In the event of non compliance of any portion of the ‘Order’ by the Opposite Part within a period of one month from the date of this order, the defaulting Opposite Party shall have to pay a sum of Rs. 200/- per day, from the date of this order till the full realization of this ‘Order’, which amount shall be paid and deposited by such Opposite Party to the State Consumer Welfare Fund.

                 Let copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied for.