Dt. of filing- 25/07/2019

Dt. of Judgement – 28/02/2020

Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President

        This consumer complaint is filed by the Complainant namely Arup Kumar Paul under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties namely 1) Walden Estates Ltd. 2) Sri Dipankar Naskar and  3) Smt. Nisha Naskar, alleging deficiency in service on their part.

          Case of the Complainant in short is that on getting the information of establishing a residential township by the Opposite Parties under the name and style “Village City” Project, by developing the same with facilities like roads, parks, lakes etc., Complainant booked a plot of land on 29/01/2014 being Plot No.A-77 measuring about 3 Cottahs in the said project at a total consideration price of Rs.3,00,000/. Complainant has paid the entire consideration money and accordingly receipt has also been issued by the Opposite Parties. On payment of consideration price periodically by the Complainant, one of the Directors of Opposite Party No.1 namely Opposite Party No.2 executed the Deed of Conveyance on 9/6/2015 in respect of an alternative plot being Plot No.A-38 instead of A-77. After registration of the sale deed Complainant requested the Opposite Parties to deliver the possession of the land after developing the same with the facilities as assured. But the Opposite Parties have not delivered the possession till date. He has neither been delivered the possession of the agreed plot being No.A-77 or alternative plot being No. A-38 nor the money has been refunded. So the present complaint has been filed by the Complainant praying for directing the Opposite Parties to deliver the possession of the plot of land as agreed, or in alternatively to refund the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and the litigation cost of Rs.30,000/-.

          Complainant has annexed with the complaint, copy of the sale deed, payment receipts and copy of the notice dated 26/2/2018 sent by the Complainant through his Ld. Advocate.

          On perusal of the record it appears that even though Opposite Party No.2 entered appearance through their Ld. Advocate on 4/9/2019 who files Vakalatnama. But thereafter neither written version was filed nor any step was taken by the Opposite Party No.2. Opposite Party No.1 & 3 also did not take any step inspite of service of notice and thus the case was directed to be proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 18/11/2019.

          During the course of evidence Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief supporting the claim made in the complaint. Ultimately argument has also been advanced on behalf of the Complainant.

          So the only point requires determination is:

          Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons

          Complainant has claimed that he booked a plot being No.A-77 in the project “Village City” which was to be developed by Opposite Party No.1, Company being represented by its Directors Opposite Party No.2 & 3. He has claimed that he has paid the entire consideration price of Rs.3,00,000/-. In support of such payment Complainant has filed money receipts wherefrom it appears that the payment of consideration price has been made by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.1 and accordingly those receipts have been issued. It is admitted case of the Complainant that Opposite Parties instead of Plot No.A-77 the Deed of Conveyance was executed in favour of the Complainant of an alternative plot being No.A-38. Deed of Conveyance has also been filed showing execution of deed in respect of the Plot being No.A-38 in favour of the Complainant. It is apparent from the own case of the Complainant that he accepted the said alternative plot forgiving the Plot being No.A-77 booked by him. So since he has accepted the said plot being No.A-38 and accordingly deed has also been executed in his favour on 9/6/2015, prayer of the Complainant to refund the sum or directing the Opposite Parties to deliver the possession of any alternative adjacent plot by executing sale deed, cannot be allowed. Unless the Deed of Conveyance dated 09/06/2015 executed in his favour, by which he has acquired right title interest over the said plot being no.A-38 is cancelled, Complainant is not entitled to alternative plot or for refund of the sum. However, since before this Forum, there is no material to controvert the claim of the Complainant that inspite of the execution of the deed in his favour in respect of the Plot No.A-38 , he has not been handed over the possession of the said plot by the Opposite Parties, he is entitled to the possession of the same. But in the given situation of this case, we find no justification to pass an order of compensation because deed was executed in June, 2015 but the Complainant moved this matter only in 2019. He remained silent all these years.

Hence,

              ORDERED

CC/371/2019 is allowed ex-parte.

Opposite Parties are directed to deliver the possession of the Plot No.A-38 in the project “Village City” as per deed dated 9/6/2015 in favour of the Complainant within 3(Three) months from the date of this order. They are further directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.12,000/- within the aforesaid period of 3(Three) months.