West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/183/2015

Arun Hazra, S/O Gangadhar Hazra. - Complainant(s)

Versus

White Fild Realtors India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

14 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144

 

      C.C. CASE NO. _183_ OF ___2015_

 

DATE OF FILING : 16.4.2015                     DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 14/3/2016

 

Present                        :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :   Sharmi Basu & Subrata Sarker

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT        :    Arun Hazra,s/o Gangadhar Hazra , Vill-Mamudpur, P.O Pandugram, P.S. Goghat, Dist. Hooghly, Pin-712122

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                            :     White Fild Realtors India Pvt. Ltd. 1C, Milan Park, Gr. Floor, Garia, Kolkata – 84.

_______________________________________________________________________

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President

This complaint gave birth on the following grounds:

1. Complainant booked a plot of land after paying advance money of Rs.90,000/- on     9.1.2014 vide cheque no. 093551 of State Bank of India , Mechada Branch.
2. But after scrutinizing the terms of the agreement some differences were found. Accordingly complainant contacted the O.P and they agreed to incorporate the changes in the final agreement but the same were not changed in the final agreement, for which, complainant cancelled the booking on 11.8.2014. All the communications and booking were done through Mr. Sujay Saha, Marketing Driector of White Fild Realtors India Pvt. Ltd.
3. It has claimed that the O.P agreed to refund the full booking amount of Rs.90,000/- within three months and accordingly Sujoy Saha handed over a post dated cheque of Rs.90,000/- being cheque no. 00025 dated 1.3.2015 of Laksmi Vilas Bank, Garia Branch. But the said cheque was bounced with a remark that account already closed.
4. It has stated by the complainant that Sujoy Saha assured further that it will be refunded short but no such action was taken from the side of the O.P.
5. Hence, this case with prayer for refund of Rs.90,000/- , compensation of Rs.3 lacs and cost of Rs.25000/-.

The O.P contested the case by filing written objection and has denied all the allegations leveled agiasnt the O.P. It is the positive case of the O.P that they are unaware of any cheque issued by Sujoy Saha. So, O.P will not take any responsibility on the dishonoured cheque which was not issued by the Company. Apart from that,  O.P has categorically stated that the statements of the complainant is concocted and fabricated except payment of Rs.90,000/- made by one cheque. It has further alleged that after payment of earnest money complainant did not turn up to make balance payment and did not execute the booking agreement. So, the conduct of the complainant proved that upon payment of earnest money of Rs.90,000/- by one cheque complainant was speculating for higher price of the land/plot. It has further stated that complainant has disappeared and did not pay any development fees and other charges for completion of the purchase by sale deed. It has also stated by the O.P that Sujoy Saha was not an M.D of the O.P company and O.P had agreed to cancel the agreement for booking but at the same time wanted to refund the earnest money with deduction. O.P prays for dismissal of the case.

Points for decision in this case is whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P or not.

 

                                                Decision with reasons

There is no dispute that complainant has booked a plot of land and paid earnest money of Rs.90,000/- and there is no dispute , if we peruse the letter dated 1.7.2014 issued by the O.P to the complainant, wherefrom it appears that a telephonic conversation was held in May, 2014 with the complainant and the O.P and at that time O.P was agreed to solve the demand for changes of some points as mentioned in the booking agreement and complainant also agreed to pay Rs.30,000/- the outstanding due till then i.e. May, 2014 against the booking plot no.168/1 , and in that letter it was also mentioned that outstanding dues was Rs.37,500/- and if the complainant failed to pay the same within 7 days, then the booking will be treated as cancelled and earnest money will be sent back to the complainant after deduction of 30% ,defaulted charges, and the complainant after receiving the said letter immediately on 11.8.2014 cancelled the agreement and wanted to get the earnest money which he paid.

Thus we find that soon after receipt of the letter dated 1.7.2014 complainant hurriedly on 11.8.2014 cancelled the agreement knowing that 30% of the earnest money would be deducted.

Now let us see what is the terms and conditions of the said agreement, wherefrom in Clause no.11a clearly speaks “failing payment of installments for three consecutive months will lead to cancellation of booking agreement according to Law. In such circumstances customers can avail any one of the following options- (i) can transfer the plot to any of his/her close acquaintance/representative,(ii) take refund of paid amount towards the plot value at the end of his/her schedule tenure(Opted for booking) money will be refunded after deducting necessary indispensible official charges”.

So, we find that there is deduction clause in the terms and conditions of the agreement and it cannot be said that the agreement was not executed but the said agreement was executed and it was cancelled by the complainant as he was dissatisfied with the view and differences. However, O.P was agreed to solve the same and when the O.P informed the complainant to pay the remaining amount with an assurance that the differences will be solved ,failing which the agreement will be cancelled and money will be refunded after deducting 30% , then and then complainant filed this complaint. So, in this backdrop we find that the parties are binding with the terms and conditions of the agreement. So, when it was not mentioned in the terms and conditions what amount of what percentage of amount will be deducted, the O.P by his letter cannot claim that deduction will be 30% ,particularly when in the terms and conditions of the agreement it has specifically mentioned “Money will be refunded after deducting necessary indispensible charges”.

So, on a moment scrutiny 30% of Rs.90,000/- comes to Rs.27000/- ,which is really unfair demand. Apart from that, one cheque of Rs.90,000/- had been paid to the complainant which was dishonoured with a remark “account closed” and now the O.P took the plea that Sujoy Saha , who issued the cheque, is not the M.D of the O.P company. But Sujoy Saha is the man who collected the money disclosing himself M.D of the O.P Company who was handed over the cheque of Rs.90,000/- by the complainant.  If the said Sujoy Saha is not a man of the O.P , how the said Sujoy Saha so dared to hand over the said cheque which was dishonoured. This is a glaring example of unfair trade practice.

He that as it may, we find that complainant saved his good money in time by cancelling the agreement. But in terms of the agreement complainant has to pay some amount towards the indispensible charges . It is needless to say complainant claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.3 lacs. It should be mentioned here for the knowledge of the complainant that Consumer Court is not a money making institution. Here, invested money cannot be more than doubled. So, that luxury claim of compensation is a sorry state of affairs.

With that observation, it is

                                                            Ordered

That the application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986  is allowed in part on contest against the O.P.

The O.P is hereby directed to refund Rs.85,000/- after deducting Rs.5000/- towards the indispensible charges from Rs.90,000/-  to the complainant positively within 30 days from the date of this order along with interest @9% p.a on and from 9.1.2014 to till its realization. That interest amount will be calculated on Rs.85000/- ,the payable amount.

The O.P is further directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.2000/- to the complainant within 30days from the date of this order, failing which, 15% interest will carry on the entire amounts from the date of default to till its realization and in that even complainant is at liberty to recover the amount through execution case.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the O.Ps through speed post.

 

Member                                                      Member                                                                President

Dictated and corrected by me

                               

                        President

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The judgment in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

                                                Ordered

That the application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986  is allowed in part on contest against the O.P.

The O.P is hereby directed to refund Rs.85,000/- after deducting Rs.5000/- towards the indispensible charges from Rs.90,000/-  to the complainant positively within 30 days from the date of this order along with interest @9% p.a on and from 9.1.2014 to till its realization. That interest amount will be calculated on Rs.85000/- ,the payable amount.

The O.P is further directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.2000/- to the complainant within 30days from the date of this order, failing which, 15% interest will carry on the entire amounts from the date of default to till its realization and in that even complainant is at liberty to recover the amount through execution case.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the O.Ps through speed post.

 

Member                                                      Member                                                                President