Date of filing : 19.01.2016
Date of hearing : 10.08.2017
The instant complainant under Section 17 ( wrongly mentioned U/s. 12) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( for brevity, “the Act” ) is at the instance of intending purchaser against the developer on the allegation of deficiency in services in a consumer dispute of housing construction.
Succinctly put, complainant’s case is that with an object to purchase of a flat measuring about 1276 sq.ft. super built area being flat no. C(Wing-D), floor no.2 at the project of OP no.1 at a consideration price of Rs. 74,50437/- situated at premises no.8, Mall Road, presently 8, K. B.Sarani, Kolkata – 700080 they paid an advance money of Rs.2,00,000/- through a Banker’s cheque issued on 20.01.2015. In order to obtain loan from Syndicate Bank, the complainants had requested the developer to supply copy of record ( Parcha ) but as the same was not given, the complainants could no avail the loan. According, the complainants have filed this complaint with prayer for refund of booking amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-, compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/-.
The Opposite Party by filing written version disputed the claim of the complainant but ultimately did not contest.
Shri Avik Roy Choudhury, Complainant No.1 has tendered evidence on affidavit . Seen the materials on record . Considered the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocate appearing for the complainants.
The materials record indicate that OP No.1 is the developer and OP No.2 is the present project of OP No.1 situated at premises no. 8, K. B. Sarani, Kolkata – 700 080. It reveals that the complainants approached the marketing personnel of OP No.1 and after discussion being convinced the complainants agreed to purchase a flat measuring about 1276 sq.ft. super built area being flat no. C(Wing-D), floor no.2 at the project of OP no.1 at a consideration price of Rs. 74,50437/- situated at premises no.8, Mall Road, presently 8, K. B.Sarani, Kolkata – 700080 they paid an advance money of Rs.2,00,000/- through a Banker’s cheque issued on 20.01.2015. The unchallenged testimony of complainant no.1 goes to show that for the purpose of obtaining banking loan and for requirement by bank, he approached the OP No.3 and requested them to provide the copy of record ( Parcha ) and other documents but the same has not been provided. It is apparent deficiency on the part of the OPs.
The facts and circumstances indicate that the complainants being ‘consumer’ as defined under section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act hired the services of OPs on consideration to buy a flat but the OPs have failed to provide the documents necessary for the purpose of obtaining loan.
The evidence given by the complainants remained uncontroverted. Therefore, when there is no counter affidavit there is hardly any reason to disbelieve the allegation of the complaint. Accordingly, complainant is entitled to an order of refund of money. However, considering the facts and circumstances I do not impose any compensation, but the complainants are entitled to litigation cost which I quantify at Rs.10,000/-.
Consequently, the petition of complaint is allowed exparte.The Opposite Party are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs. 2,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainants within 30 days from date otherwise the amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- shall carry interest @9% p.a. from date till its realisation.
The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the complainant and OP at once free of cost for information and compliance.
