Consumer Case / Judgment / Ramakrishnan Jayashree Versus Greenhaven Realty Private Limited

 

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

South 24 Parganas

Baruipur , Kolkata - 700 144.

 

Complaint Case No. CC/102/2020 ( Date of Filing : 18 Dec 2020 )

1. Smt. Ramakrishnan Jayashree, W/O- Shri Perinkulam Ramamurthy Rama Krishnan Duplex 16/17D, Block 5, OZONE Apartments, Dakshin Kumrakhali, Kamalgazi, Kolkata-700103 2. Shri Perinkulam Ramamurthy Ramakrishnan S/O Ramamurthy Perinkulam Ramakrishnana Duplex 16/17D, Block 5, OZONE Apartments, Dakshin Kumrakhali, Kamalgazi, Kolkata-700103 South 24 Parganas ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. M/S Greenhaven Realty Private Limited Having registered office at premises being no. GF-12,1953, Rajdanga Main Road,(st Floor), Kolkata-700107, P.S- Kasba 2. Mr. Biswanath Mondal Vill- Purba Goyalbati Kheyadaha, P.O- Uchhapota, P.S- Sonarpur, Kolkata-700150 South 24 Parganas 3. Mrs. Ira Mondal W/O - Biswanath Mondal Vill- Purba Goyalbati Kheyadaha, P.O- Ucchapota, P.S-Sonarpur, Kolkata-700150 S 24 Pgs 4. Mr. Sudipta Kumar Ghosh, Sri Sisir Kumar Ghosh C-18/4, Baisakhi Abasan, Block AG, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700091 5. Smt. Paroma Pathak, D/O- Sri Apurba Pathak 129, Jessore Road, Dum Dum, P.S- Dum Dum, Kolkata-700159 6. CEEDAI Bengal Jindal Tower, Block A, Flat 4E, 4th Floor, 21/1a/3, Darga Road, Darga Road, Kolkata, West Bengal,700017 ............Opp.Party(s)

 

BEFORE:
	SHRI ASHOKE KUMAR PAL PRESIDENT
	JAGADISH CHANDRA BARMAN MEMBER
	SMT. SANGITA PAUL MEMBER

 

PRESENT:

Dated : 25 Aug 2022

Final Order / Judgement

Sri Ashoke Kumar Pal, President. The matrix of the instant complaint case in a nutshell is that with the intention to construct their own house, the complainants booked a plot of land measuring about 10 Cottahs from the O.Ps. being plot No. 10 C 89 in the Township Project “Green City Sonarpur”, morefully described in the Paragraph No.- 8 of the petition of complaint at a valuable consideration of Rs. 22,50,000/-(Rupees twenty two lakh fifty thousand only) (@Rs. 2,25,000/- per Cottah). The complainants paid Rs. 4,50,000/-(Rupees four lakh fifty thousand only) on 29.05.2013 and thereafter paid Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees twelve lakh only) in 12 installments from 01.07.2013 to 28.01.2014  of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each totalling to an amount of Rs. 16,50,000/- (Rupees sixteen lakh fifty thousand only) by cheques for which money receipts have been issued by the O.Ps. Thereafter, although the complainants paid the rest amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakh only) by several cheques but the O.Ps. did not give any money receipts for the same. After payment of the entire consideration amount, the complainants on several occasions requested the O.Ps. to handover the possession of the scheduled plot of land and to execute and register a proper deed of conveyance in favour of the complainants. But except giving assurance the O.Ps. did not do anything. As no fruitful result was achieved despite repeated requests by the complainants, they have lodged an FIR against the O.Ps. at Kasba PS which has been duly registered being No. 345 / 2017 dated 17.08.2017 under section 420, 406 and 120B of the I.P. Code. Since the project “Green City Sonarpur” has not ever been developed in any manner whatsoever by the O.Ps., the complainants have been compelled to file the instant complaint case with a prayer to get back the amount of Rs. 22,50,000/-(Rupees twenty two lakh fifty thousand only) from the O.Ps. with bank interest which the complainants paid to them, to pay compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/-(Rupees six lakh only) by the O.Ps. for mental pain and agony, harassment and inconvenience suffered by the complainants, to pay litigation cost and for any other reliefs under law and equity. The O.Ps. though appeared in this case but did not contest the case by filing W.V. and as such the instant case proceeded ex-parte as against the O.Ps.                          POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION: Are the complainants consumers? Are the O.Ps. guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice? Are the complainants entitled to get reliefs as prayed for?                          DECISIONS WITH REASONS: Point No. 1: On perusal of the case record along with the documents, it appears that the complainants were willing to purchase the scheduled plot of land measuring about 10 Cottahs being plot No. 10 C 89 in the Township Project “Green City Sonarpur”, morefully described in the Paragraph No.- 8 of the petition of complaint and the O.Ps. agreed to sell the same to the complainants for which the allotment letter (Annexure – C) was issued to them. The complainants paid the full consideration amount of Rs. 22,50,000/-(Rupees twenty two lakh fifty thousand only) on different dates by cheques. Therefore, the complainants are consumers as defined in Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. As such, Point No. 1 is decided in favour of the complainants and against the O.Ps.     Point No. 2: The complainants booked the scheduled plot of land and allotment letter was issued to them to that effect. The complainants also made payment of the total consideration amount of Rs. 22,50,000/-(Rupees twenty two lakh fifty thousand only) on different dates through cheques and the O.Ps. acknowledged the receipt of the same by issuing money receipts and allotment letter. The complainants filed copies of the money receipts and the letter of allotment along with the petition of complaint from which it appears that all the payments have been properly made. On the other hand, despite payment of full consideration amount by the complainants, the O.Ps. failed and neglected to handover the possession of the scheduled plot of land to the complainants and to execute and register a proper deed of conveyance in favour of the complainants. The complainants finding no other alternative demanded the O.Ps. to refund the amount of Rs. 22,50,000/-(Rupees twenty two lakh fifty thousand only) along with bank interest and also lodged an FIR at Kasba PS against the O.Ps. Therefore, it is crystal clear from the averment of the complainants that the O.Ps. are guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. As such, the second point is also decided in favour of the complainants and against the O.Ps. Point No. 3: The complainants booked the scheduled plot of land from the O.Ps. and made full payment of the consideration amount of Rs. 22,50,000/-(Rupees twenty two lakh fifty thousand only) by cheques on different dates. But the O.Ps. failed and neglected to hand over the possession of the scheduled plot of land to the complainants nor they refunded the amount of Rs. 22,50,000/-(Rupees twenty two lakh fifty thousand only) with interest which they received from the complainants. Therefore, as the complainants did not get any positive response from the O.Ps., they have been compelled to file the present complaint case against the O.Ps. on the reliefs sought for in the petition of complaint. As such there is no hesitation to hold that the complainants are entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for as the O.Ps. did not handover the physical possession of the scheduled plot of land to the complainants nor any deed of conveyance has been executed and registered in favour of the complainants. The complainants failed to get service from the O.Ps. On the other hand, the complainants were harassed by the O.Ps. by various ways. Therefore, the complainants are entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for. Thus, the third point is also decided in favour of the complainants and against the O.Ps. In the result, the complaint case succeeds.  Fees paid is correct. Hence, it is                                                                           ordered that the instant case be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the O.Ps. with cost of Rs. 25,000/-( Rupees twenty five thousand only). The O.P. Nos. 1 to 5 are jointly and severally liable and directed to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the scheduled plot of land being plot No. 10 C 89 in the Township Project “Green City Sonarpur”, morefully described in the allotment letter as well as in Paragraph No.- 8 of the petition of complaint in favour of the complainants and to execute and register a proper deed of conveyance in respect of the scheduled plot of land as aforesaid in favour of the complainants within 45 days from the date of passing this Order. Alternatively, the O.P. Nos. 1 to 5 are jointly and severally liable and directed to refund the entire consideration amount of Rs. 22,50,000/-(Rupees twenty two lakh fifty thousand only) along with simple interest @ 12% p.a. with effect from 29.05.2013 (date of payment of first instalment) to the complainants till the date of final realization  thereof within 45 days from the date of passing this Order. The O.P. Nos. 1 to 5 are jointly and severally liable and also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakh only) for mental pain and agony, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, harassment and inconvenience suffered by the  complainants within 45 days from the date of passing this Order failing which it will carry interest @12% p.a. from this date till final realisation thereof. The O.P. Nos. 1 to 5 are jointly and severally liable and also directed to pay the litigation cost of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) within 45 days from the date of passing this Order. The complainants are at liberty to put the order into execution after the expiry of 45 days in case the orders are not complied with by the O.Ps. within 45 days from the date of passing this Order. Let a copy of the order be sent / supplied free of cost to the parties concerned. The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in. Dictated and corrected by me.                President

 

[ SHRI ASHOKE KUMAR PAL]

PRESIDENT

[ JAGADISH CHANDRA BARMAN]

MEMBER

[ SMT. SANGITA PAUL]

MEMBER

Consumer Case / Judgment / Kaushik Mukherjee Versus Greenhaven Realty Private Limited

 

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

South 24 Parganas

Baruipur , Kolkata - 700 144.

 

Complaint Case No. CC/142/2019 ( Date of Filing : 21 Aug 2019 )

1. Shri Kaushik Mukherjee, S/O Kartik Chandra Mukherjee. residing at Premises being no. 28/A, Second Street, Flat no. 4, Santoshpur, Modern Park, P.S.- Survey Park, Kolkata- 700075, west Bengal. ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. 1.M/S. Greenhaven Rrealty Pvt.Ltd. Registered office at Premises being no. GF-12, 1953, Rajdanga Main Road, (1st Floor), Kolkata- 700107, P.S.- Kasba. 2. 2.(a) Mr. Biswanath Mondal, S/O Sri Mangal Chan dra Mondal, Chairman cum Managing Director. and authorised Signatory, Of M/S. Greenhaven Realty Pvt. Ltd. Registered office at premises being no. GF-12, 1953, Rajdanga Main Road, (1st Floor ), Kolkata-700107, P.S. Kasba. 3. 2.(b) Mr. Biswanath Mondal. Residing at Village- Purba Goyalbati, Kheyadaha, Sonarpur, South 24- Parganas, Kolkata- 743369. 4. 3.(a)Mrs. Ira Mondal, Wife of not known, Director of M/S. Green haven Realty Pvt. Ltd. Registered office at premises being no. GF-12, 1953, Rajdanga Main Road, (1st Floor ), Kolkata- 700107, P.S.-700107, P.S.-Kasba. 5. 3(b)Mrs. Ira Mondal. Residing at Village- Purba Goyalbati, Kheyadaha, Sonarpur, South 24 Parganas, Kolkata- 743369. 6. 4.(a) Mr. Sudipta Kumar Ghosh, S/O Sisir Kumar Ghosh. Director of M/S. Green haven Realty Ltd. Registered office at premises being no. GF-12, 1953, Rajdanga Main Road, (1st Floor ), Kolkata- 700107, P.S.-700107, P.S.-Kasba. 7. 4(b) Mr. Sudipta Kumar Ghosh, S/O Sisir Kumar Ghosh. Residing at Premises being no. C-181, Baisakhi Abasan Block AG, Salt Lake, Kolkata- 700091. 8. 5(a) Smt. Paroma Pathak, Daughter of Sri Apurba Pathak, Director of M/S. Green haven Realty Ltd. Registered office at premises being no. GF-12, 1953, Rajdanga Main Road, (1st Floor ), Kolkata- 700107, P.S.-700107, P.S.-Kasba. 9. 5.(b) Smt. Paroma Pathak, Daughter of Sri Apurba Pathak. residing at Premises being no. 129, Jessore Road, Dum Dum, P.S- Dum Dum, Kolkata- 700055. ............Opp.Party(s)

 

BEFORE:
	SHRI ASHOKE KUMAR PAL PRESIDENT
	JAGADISH CHANDRA BARMAN MEMBER
	SMT. SANGITA PAUL MEMBER

 

PRESENT:

Dated : 23 Jun 2022

Final Order / Judgement

Order No:38 Today is fixed for delivery of judgment/final order. Final order is ready. It is sealed, signed and delivered in open Forum/Commission.   Sri Ashoke Kumar Pal, President Stripped off unnecessary details the complainant’s case in sort is that with the intention to construct his own house, the complainant booked a plot of land   measuring 4 cottahs from the OPs being plot No.4D300 in the Township Project Green City Sonarpur, more fully described in the schedule of the agreement dated 02.05.2013 at a valuable consideration of Rs.6,00,000/-. The complainant paid the entire consideration amount of Rs.6,00,000/- in installments from the 03.11.2012 to 02.05.2014 on different dates for which money receipts have been issued by the OPs.  Thereafter the complainant on several occasions requested the OPs to execute and register a proper Deed of Conveyance in terms of the agreement dated 02.05.2013.  But except giving assurance the OPs did not do anything.  In July, 2014 the OPs gave another proposal to the complainant in modification of their project as “Plot with Bungalow” and asked the complainant to make further payment to which the complainant denied and asked the OPs for refund of the money paid by him with Bank interest along with compensation.  The OPs did not pay back the money with interest and compensation and hence this case. The Opposite Party No.2(b) and 3 (b) contested the case by filing W/V denying all the allegations made in the petition of complainant.  They also denied about the existance of the agreements made by and between the parties.  The existence of the company is also denied by the OPs,.  The OPs also denied the other materials averment of the petition of complainant parawise and prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.   The instance case proceeded exparte as against the rest of the OPs as per Order No.7 Dated 03.01.2020. Points for consideration Is the complainant a consumer? Are the O.Ps. guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice? Is the complainant entitled to get reliefs as prayed for? Decision with Reasons 01.On perusal of the case record along with the documents, it appears that the complainant was willing to purchase the schedule plot of land measuring about 4 cottahs more fully described in the schedule of the agreement dated 22.05.2013 and he OPs agreed to sell the same to the complainant for which the agreement for sale dated 02.05.2013 was made by and between the parties.  The complainant paid Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs) on different dates towards total consideration amount.  Therefore, the complainant is a consumer as defined in Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  As such, Point No.1 is decided in favour of the complainant and against the Opposite Parties. 02.The complainant booked the scheduled plot of land and entered into an agreement dated 02.05.2013 with the OPs to that effect.  The complainant also made payment of the total consideration amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs) on different dates and the Opposite Parties acknowledged the receipt of the same by issuing money receipts.  The complainant filed copies of the money receipts along with petition of complaint from which it appears that all the payments have been properly made.  On the other hand, despite the payment of full consideration amount by the complainant as per terms of the agreement dated 02.05.2013 the Opposite Parties failed and neglected to hand over the possession of the schedule plot of land to the complainant and to execute and register a proper Deed of Conveyance.  The complainant finding no other alternative demanded the OPs to pay back the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs) along with bank interest and compensation.  Therefore, it is clear that from the averment of the complainant that the OPs are guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  As such, the second point is also decided in favour of the complainant and against the OPs. 03.The complainant booked the scheduled plot of land from the OPs and made full payment of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs) on different dates.  But the OPs violated the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 02.05.2013.  Neither the OPs handed over the schedule plot of land as described in the schedule of agreement for sale dated 02.05.2013 nor they returned the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs) with interest which they received from the complainant as per agreement for sale dated 02.05.2013.  Therefore, as the complainant did not get any positive response from the OPs he has been compelled to file the present case against the OPs on the relief sought for in the petition of complaint.  As such, there is no hesitation to hold that the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for as the OPs did not hand over the physical possession of the scheduled plot of land to the complainant nor any Deed of Conveyance has been executed and registered in favour of the complainant.  The complainant failed to get service from the OPs.  On the other hand, the complainant was harassed by the OPs by various ways.  Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.  Thus the third point is also decided in favour of the complainant and against the OPs.   In the result, the complaint case succeeds. Fees paid is correct. Hence, it is,                                                               ORDERED That the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP No.2(b) and 3(b) and exparte against the rest with cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand). The O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the scheduled plot of land as described in the schedule of the agreement for sale dated 02.05.2013 in favour of the complainant and to execute and register a proper Deed of Conveyance in respect of the scheduled plot of land as   aforesaid within 60 days from the date of passing this order. Alternatively, the OPs are jointly and severally directed to refund the entire amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs) only along with 12% simple interest p.a. with effect from 03.11.2012 (date of payment of first instalment)  till the date of final realization within 60 days from the date of passing this order. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) only for mental pain and agony suffered by the complainant within 60 days from the date of passing this order. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand). The complainant is at liberty to put the order into execution after the expiry of 60 days if the orders are not complied with by the OPs within 60days from the date of passing this order. Let a copy of the order be supplied free of cost to both the parties as per rules.                            The Final order will be made available in www.confonet.nic.in .               Dictated and corrected by me                     Ashoke Kumar Pal                                          President

 

[ SHRI ASHOKE KUMAR PAL]

PRESIDENT

[ JAGADISH CHANDRA BARMAN]

MEMBER

[ SMT. SANGITA PAUL]

MEMBER

Consumer Execution Case / Abhijit Roy / Greenhaven Realty Private Limited

 

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission South 24 Parganas Baruipur , Kolkata - 700 144.

Execution Application No. EA/117/2016 ( Date of Filing : 28 Nov 2016 ) In Complaint Case No. CC/13/2015   1. 1.Shri Abhijit Roy, S/O Shri Digendra Nath Roy. Presently residing at premises no. 29/70, 3rd Floor, New Delhi- 11008 behind Gurudwara, rep. attor. Shri Digendra Nath Roy, S/O Lt. Mahendra Nath Roy, res. no. 35, School Road, Flat no. 6 Kol-75. 2. 2. Smt. Kalpana Roy Wife of Shri Digendra Nath Roy. Presently residing at premises no. 29/70, 3rd Floor, New Delhi- 11008 behind Gurudwara, rep. attor. Shri Digendra Nath Roy, S/O Lt. Mahendra Nath Roy, res. no. 35, School Road, Flat no. 6 Kol-75. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. 1. M/S. Greenhaven Realty Private Ltd. Registered office at Premises being no. GF -12,1953, Rajdanga Main Road, (1st Floor), Kolkata- 700 107, P.S.- Kasba. 2. 2. Mr. Biswanath Mondal, S/O not known. Chairman cum Managing Director and Authorised Signatory. Of M/S. Greenhaven Realty Private Limited. 3. a. M/S. Green haven Realty Private Limited. Registered office at Premises being no. GF -12,1953, Rajdanga Main Road, (1st Floor), Kolkata- 700 107, P.S.- Kasba. 4. b. Residing at Village- Purba Goyalbati Kheyadaha, Sonarpur, South 24- Parganas, Kolkata- 743369. 5. 3. Mrs. Ira Mondal, Wife of not known. Director of M/S. Green haven Realty Pvt. Ltd. .. 6. a. M/S. Green haven Realty Private Limited. Registered office at Premises being no. GF -12,1953, Rajdanga Main Road, (1st Floor), Kolkata- 700 107, P.S.- Kasba. 7. b. Residing at Village- Purba Goyalbati Kheyadaha, Sonarpur, South 24- Parganas, Kolkata- 743369. 8. 4. Mr. Sudipta Kumar Ghosh, S/O not known. Director of M/S. Greenhaven Realty Pvt. Ltd. .. 9. a. M/S. Green haven Realty Private Limited. Registered office at Premises being no. GF -12,1953, Rajdanga Main Road, (1st Floor), Kolkata- 700 107, P.S.- Kasba. 10. 4.b Mr. Sudipta Kumar Ghosh. S/O not Known, Director of M/S. Greenheaven Realty Pvt. Ltd. Residing at Premises being no. C-181, Baisakhi Abasan Block, AG,Salt Lake, Kolkata- 700091. ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:     JAGADISH CHANDRA BARMAN PRESIDING MEMBER   SMT. SANGITA PAUL MEMBER

PRESENT:

Dated : 21 Mar 2022

Final Order / Judgement 48........21.03.2022 Both parties are present.  JDR-2 states that they have reached an amicable settlement with the Dhr.  They have paid all the decreetal dues.  Dhr. states that he has received all the dues.  He has no grievance. Heard.  considered.  On perusal of records, we have come to the conclusion that the matter be disposed of on full and final satisfaction.

[ JAGADISH CHANDRA BARMAN] PRESIDING MEMBER

Consumer Case / Judgment / Debashis Kundu Versus Greenhaven Realty Private Limited

 

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

South 24 Parganas

Baruipur , Kolkata - 700 144.

 

Complaint Case No. CC/143/2019 ( Date of Filing : 21 Aug 2019 )

1. Shri Debashis Kundu,S /O Nepal Chndra Kundu. residing at premises being no. 8/6 Tansen Road, B-Zone, Durgapur- 713205, Dist. Burdwan, P.S.- Arobinda Police Station. ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. 1.M/S. Greenhaven Rrealty Pvt.Ltd. Registered office at premises being no. GF-12, 1953, Rajdanga Main Road, (1st Floor ), Kolkata- 700107, P.S.-700107, P.S.-Kasba. 2. 2.(a) Mr. Biswanath Mondal, S/O Sri Mangal Chan dra Mondal, Chairman cum Managing Director. and authorised Signatory, Of M/S. Greenhaven Realty Pvt. Ltd. Registered office at premises being no. GF-12, 1953, Rajdanga Main Road, (1st Floor ), Kolkata- 700107, P.S.-700107, P.S.-Kasba. 3. 2.(b) Mr. Biswanath Mondal. Residing at Village- Purba Goyal Bati Kheyadaha, Sonarpur, Dist. South 24- Pargnas, Kolkata- 743369. 4. 3.(a)Mrs. Ira Mondal, Wife of not known, Director of M/S. Green haven Realty Pvt. Ltd. Registered office at premises being no. GF-12, 1953, Rajdanga Main Road, (1st Floor ), Kolkata- 700107, P.S.-700107, P.S.-Kasba. 5. 3.(B) Mrs. Ira Mondal, Residing at Village- Purba Goyalbati, Kheyadaha, Sonarpur, South 24- Parganas, Kolkata- 743369. 6. 4.(a) Mr. Sudipta Kumar Ghosh, S/O Sisir Kumar Ghosh. Director of M/S. Green haven Realty Ltd. Registered office at premises being no. GF-12, 1953, Rajdanga Main Road, (1st Floor ), Kolkata- 700107, P.S.-700107, P.S.-Kasba. 7. 4(b) Mr. Sudipta Kumar Ghosh, S/O Sisir Kumar Ghosh. Residing at Premises being no. C-181, Baisakhi Abasan Block AG, Salt Lake, Kolkata- 700091. 8. 5(a) Smt. Paroma Pathak, Daughter of Sri Apurba Pathak, Director of M/S. Green haven Realty Ltd. Registered office at premises being no. GF-12, 1953, Rajdanga Main Road, (1st Floor ), Kolkata- 700107, P.S.-700107, P.S.-Kasba. 9. 5.(b) Smt. Paroma Pathak, Daughter of Sri Apurba Pathak. residing at premises being no. 129, Jessore Road, Dum Dum, P.S. Dum Dum, Kolkata- 700055. ............Opp.Party(s)

 

BEFORE:
	ASISH KUMAR SENAPATI PRESIDENT
	Mrs. Sangita Paul MEMBER

 

PRESENT:

Dated : 13 Jan 2022

Final Order / Judgement

24....13.01.2022.... Today is fixed for delivery of judgment/final order. Final order containing 5 pages is ready. It is sealed, signed and delivered in open Forum/Commission. It is ordered that,                                                               ORDERED That the complaint case be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 with cost and allowed ex-parte against the rest  with cost. The O.Ps. are directed to refund the advance amount of Rs. 3,98,337/- with simple interest @6% p.a. w.e.f 03.06.2014 till realization to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order. The O.Ps. are also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order. Both the O.Ps. are jointly and severally liable to pay the advance amount with interest, compensation and litigation cost to the complainant by 60 days from the date of this order.             Let copies of final order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per rules.             The Final order also be made available in www.confonet.nic.in . DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION           SOUTH 24-PARGANAS         AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 144 C.C.NO. 143  OF 2019   DATE OF FILING                         DATE OF ADMISSION              DATE OF FINAL ORDER      21.08.2019                                      06.09.2019                                   13.01.2022   Present                                             :  President   :  Asish Kumar Senapati                                                               Member     :  Sangita Paul                                                                COMPLAINANT                              : 1.  Sri Debashis Kundu, S/o – Nepal Chandra Kundu, Residing at 8/6 Tansen Road, B Zone, Durgapur - 713205, District – Burdwan, P.S. – Arobindo Police Station.                                        Versus O.P/O.Ps                                          :1. M/S. Greenhaven Rrealty Pvt.Ltd. Registered office at premises being no. GF-12, 1953, Rajdanga Main Road, (1st Floor ), Kolkata- 700107, P.S.-700107, P.S.-Kasba.                                                             2(a). Mr. Biswanath Mondal, S/O Sri Mangal Chan dra Mondal, Chairman cum Managing Director. and authorised Signatory, Of M/S. Greenhaven Realty Pvt. Ltd., Registered office at premises being no. GF-12, 1953, Rajdanga Main Road, (1st Floor ), Kolkata- 700107, P.S.-700107, P.S.-Kasba.                                                             2(b). Mr. Biswanath Mondal. Residing at Village- Purba Goyal Bati Kheyadaha, Sonarpur, Dist. South 24- Pargnas, Kolkata- 743369.                                                             3(a). Mrs. Ira Mondal, Wife of not known, Director of M/S. Green haven Realty Pvt. Ltd. Registered office at premises being no. GF-12, 1953, Rajdanga Main Road, (1st Floor ), Kolkata- 700107, P.S.-700107, P.S.-Kasba.                                                              3(b). Mrs. Ira Mondal, Residing at Village- Purba Goyalbati, Kheyadaha, Sonarpur, South 24- Parganas, Kolkata- 743369.                                                             4(a). Mr. Sudipta Kumar Ghosh, S/O Sisir Kumar Ghosh. Director of M/S. Green haven Realty Ltd. Registered office at premises being no. GF-12, 1953, Rajdanga Main Road, (1st Floor ), Kolkata- 700107, P.S.-700107, P.S.-Kasba.                                                             4(b). Mr. Sudipta Kumar Ghosh, S/O Sisir Kumar Ghosh, Residing at Premises being no. C-181, Baisakhi Abasan Block AG, Salt Lake, Kolkata- 700091.                                                             5(a). Smt. Paroma Pathak, Daughter of Sri Apurba Pathak, Director of M/S. Green haven Realty Ltd. Registered office at premises being no. GF-12, 1953, Rajdanga Main Road, (1st Floor ), Kolkata- 700107, P.S.-700107, P.S.-Kasba. 5(b). Smt. Paroma Pathak, Daughter of Sri Apurba Pathak. residing at premises being no. 129, Jessore Road, Dum Dum, P.S. Dum Dum, Kolkata- 700055. Advocate for the Complainant : Smt. Suchitra Chakraborty Advocate for the O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 : Sri Prasanta Mondal Sri Asish Kumar Senapati, President One Sri Debashis Kundu (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) filed the case against M/S. Green Heaven Realty Pvt. Ltd. and 8 others (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for payment of Rs. 5,18,702/- or to pay Rs. 3,98,337/- along with interest, compensation of Rs. 3 Lac and litigation cost against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service.             The sum and substance of the complaint is as follows:              The complainant was interested to purchase a plot of land to build his home and the O.P. NO. 1 represented by O.P. Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 invited application for Green City Sonarpur Project and the complainant paid Rs. 90,000/- through cheques as 20% valuation of the plot and the O.Ps. allotted plot No. 2B138 in Green City Sonarpur Project vide letter dated 23.03.2012. That the complainant entered into an agreement for sale dated 19.07.2012 for purchase of 2 Kathas of land at a consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/- and the complainant paid Rs. 1,03,336/- form January, 2012 to July, 2012. That the complainant paid Rs. 3,98,337/- from 20.03.2012 to 03.06.2014 against proper money receipt. That in July, 2014 the O.Ps. came with another proposal for modification of their project as plot with Bunglow and asked for additional payment when the complainant informed the O.Ps. that he was not interested to accept the offer and requested them to refund the advance with interest. Ultimately, the O.P. No. 1 issued a cheque being No. 008406 dated 22.06.2015 amounting Rs. 5,18,702/- drawn on ICICI Bank, Kasba Branch as refund of advance amount with interest. That the complainant presented the cheque to his banker HDFC Bank on 16.07.2015 but the same was dishonored with remarks “Insufficient fund”. The complainant requested the O.P. No. 1 and others to pay the amount but of no result. Hence, the case has been filed praying for reliefs.             The O.P. Nos. 2(b) and 3(b) contested the case by filing W.V. on 17.12.2019 contending that the case is not maintainable. It is the case of the O.Ps. that the O.P. No. 2(b) has 60% share in O.P. No. 1 and one Sudipta Kumar Ghosh and Parama Pathak have jointly 40% share in O.P. No. 1. That the said Sudipta Kumar Ghosh and Parama Pathak in connivance with some creditors breached the trust. The O.P. No. 2 (b) had already paid the total sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- to 15 creditors. That there is no cause of action. They pray for dismissal of the complaint.             It appears from the cause title that the O.P. Nos. 2(a) and 2(b), 3(a) and 3(b), 4(a) and 4(b), 5(a) and 5(b) are same persons. The O.P. Nos. 4 and 5 did not contest the case.             On the basis of the above versions, the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :- Is the complainant  consumer under the provisions of C.P Act? Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.? Is the complainant entitled to get any relief against the O.Ps., as prayed for? DECISION WITH REASONS Point Nos. 1, 2 and 3 :-             The Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that the complainant is a consumer as he entered into an agreement for sale with the O.Ps. for purchase of a plot of land and at a consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/-. It is argued that the O.Ps. did not refund the advance amount with interest in spite of repeated request. It is urged that the O.P. No. 2 issued a cheque amounting Rs. 5,18,702/- in favour of   the complainant on 22.06.2015 but the same was dishonored due to insufficient fund. He prays for a direction upon the O.Ps. so that they may pay the said amount to the complainant with compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- and litigation cost. None appears on behalf of the O.Ps. at the time of hearing of argument.             We have gone through the materials on record. It appears from the photocopy of documents that the complainant entered into an agreement with the O.Ps. on 19.02.2012 and subsequently on 17.08.2013 for purchase of a plot of land. It also appears from the photocopies of the money receipts and the statements issued by the O.P. No. 1 that the complainant paid Rs. 3,98,337/- up to 03.06.2014. It is the specific case of the complainant that the O.P. No. 2 issued the cheque amounting Rs. 5,18,702/- in favour of the complainant on 22.06.2015 as refund of advance amount with interest but the same was dishonored due to insufficient fund. The O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 took the plea that the O.P. No. 2 had 60% share in O.P. No. 1 and he issued cheque amounting Rs. 15,00,000/- to discharge his liability. The O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 did not mention as to why the cheque issued in favour of the complainant was dishonored. There is no document to believe the statements of the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 that the O.P. No. 2 had only 60% share in O.P. No. 1 and he discharged his liability. On a careful consideration, we find that the complainant had informed the O.Ps. that he is interested to get back his advance with interest. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is a consumer and the O.Ps. have deficiency in service. In our considered view, the complainant is entitled to get back his advance amount of Rs. 3,98,337/- with simple interest @6% p.a. w.e.f 03.06.2014 till realization, compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/- against the O.Ps. We think that the O.Ps. are jointly and severally liable to pay the advance amount with interest, compensation and litigation cost to the complainant.                 All points are thus disposed of.             In the result, the complaint case succeeds.             Fees paid are correct.               Hence, It is                                                               ORDERED That the complaint case be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 with cost and allowed ex-parte against the rest  with cost. The O.Ps. are directed to refund the advance amount of Rs. 3,98,337/- with simple interest @6% p.a. w.e.f 03.06.2014 till realization to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order. The O.Ps. are also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order. Both the O.Ps. are jointly and severally liable to pay the advance amount with interest, compensation and litigation cost to the complainant by 60 days from the date of this order.             Let copies of final order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per rules.             The Final order also be made available in www.confonet.nic.in .               Dictated and corrected by me                                       President

 

[ ASISH KUMAR SENAPATI]

PRESIDENT

[ Mrs. Sangita Paul]

MEMBER

Consumer Case / Judgment / Greenhaven Realty Private Limited

 

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

South 24 Parganas

Baruipur, Kolkata-700 144

 

Complaint Case No. CC/11/2020 ( Date of Filing : 04 Feb 2020 )

1. Smt. Soma Molla, Wife of Ashish K. Ghosh. premises being no. 20/1, Jugipara Road, Flat- C-1, Debaloy Apartment, Kolkata- 700028, P.S. Dum Dum Dist. North 24- Pgs. ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. 1. M/S. Greenhaven Realty Pvt. Ltd. office at premises no. GF-12, 1953, Rajdanga Main Road, (Ist Floor ), Kolkata- 700107, P.s.- Kasba. 2. 2. Mr. Biswanath Mondal, S/O Sri Mangal Chandra Mondal. Residing at Village- Purba Goyalbati, Kheyadaha, Sonarpur, South 24- Parganas, Kolkata- 743369. 3. 3. Mrs. Ira Mondal,. Residing at Village- Purba Goyalbati, Kheyadaha, Sonarpur, South 24- Parganas, Kolkata- 743369. 4. 4. Mr. Sudipta Kumar Ghosh, S/O Sisir Kumar Ghosh. Residing at premises being no. C-181, Baisakhi Abasan, Block-AG, Salt Lake, Kolkata- 700091. 5. 5. Smt. Paroma Pathak, Daughter of Sri Apurba Pathak. residing at premises being no. 129, Jessore Road, Dum Dum, P.s.- Sum Dum, Kolkata- 700055. ............Opp.Party(s)

 

BEFORE:
	SHRI ASHOKE KUMAR PAL PRESIDENT
	JAGADISH CHANDRA BARMAN MEMBER

 

PRESENT:

Dated : 01 Feb 2023

Final Order / Judgement

Sri Ashoke Kumar Pal, President The matrix of the complaint case in short is that with the intention to construct his own house the complainant booked a plot of land measuring about 4 cottahs from the O.Ps. being Plot No. 4A19 in the Township Project “Green City Sonarpur” more fully described in the schedule of the agreement dated 06.10.2012 at a valuable consideration of 6,00,000/- (Rs. 1,50,000/- per cottah).  The complainant paid Rs.5,20,000/- (Rupees five lakh twenty thousand) only by installments on different dates for which money receipts have been issued by the O.Ps.  Thereafter, the complainant on several occasions requested the O.Ps. to execute and register a proper deed of conveyance in terms of the agreement dated 06.10.2012.  But except giving assurance the O.Ps. did not do anything. In July, 2014 the O.Ps. gave another proposal to the complainant in modification of their project as “Plot with Bungalow” and asked the complainant to make further payment to which the complainant denied and asked the O.Ps. for refund of the money paid by him with bank interest and compensation.  Ultimately, the OPs did not pay back the money with interest and compensation and hence this case.  The O.Ps. did come forward to contest the case by filing W.V. and as such the instant complaint case proceeded ex-parte against all the O.Ps. by Order No. 21 dated 08.06.2022 and Order No. 23 dated 09.09.2022. Points for consideration :- Is the complainant a consumer? Are the O.Ps. guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice? Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for? Decision with Reasons :- Point No.1 :-  On perusal of the case record along with documents, it appears that the complainant was willing to purchase the scheduled plot of land measuring about 4 cottahs more fully described in the schedule of the agreement dated 06.10.2012 being plot no.:4A19 and the O.Ps. agreed to sell the same to the complainant for which agreement for sale dated 06.10.2012 was made by and between the parties.  The complainant paid Rs.5,20,000/-(Rupees five lakh twenty thousand) only by installments on different dates. Therefore, the complainant is a consumer as defined in Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  As such, Point No.1 is decided in favour of the complainant and against the O.Ps. Point No.2 :-  The complainant booked a scheduled plot of land and entered into an agreement dated 06.10.2012 with the O.Ps. to that effect.  The complainant also made payment of Rs.5,20,000/-(Rupees five lakh twenty thousand) only on different dates and the O.Ps. acknowledged the receipt of the same by issuing money receipts.  The complainant filed copy of the money receipts along with the petition of complaint from which it appears that all the payments have been properly made.  On the other hand, despite the payment of major portion of the full consideration amount by the complainant as per terms of the agreement dated 06.10.2012 the O.Ps. failed and neglected to hand over the possession of the schedule plot of land to the complainant and to execute and register a proper deed of conveyance.  The complainant finding no other alternative demanded the O.Ps. to pay back the amount of Rs.5,20,000/-(Rupees five lakh twenty thousand) only along with bank interest and compensation.  Therefore, it is clear from the averment of the complainant that the O.Ps. are guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for which the complainant suffered mental pain, agony and harassment.  As such, the Point No. 2 is also decided in favour of the complainant and against the O.Ps. Point No.3 :-  The complainant booked the scheduled plot of land from the O.Ps. and made payment of Rs.5,20,000/-(Rupees five lakh twenty thousand) only  on different dates.  But the O.Ps. violated the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 06.10.2012.  Neither the O.Ps. handed over the possession of the scheduled plot of land as described in the schedule of the agreement for sale dated 06.10.2012 nor they returned the amount of Rs.5,20,000/-(Rupees five lakh twenty thousand) only with interest and compensation which they received from the complainant as per terms of agreement for sale dated 06.10.2012.  Therefore, as the complainant did not get any positive response from the O.Ps. he has been compelled to file the present case against the O.Ps. on the reliefs sought for in the petition of complainant.  As such, there is no hesitation to hold that the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.  As the O.Ps. did not hand over the physical possession of the  scheduled plot of land to the complainant nor any deed of conveyance has been executed and registered in favour of the complainant,  the complainant failed to get service from the O.Ps.  On the other hand, the complainant was harassed by the O.Ps. by various ways.  Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.  Thus the Point No. 3 is also decided in favour of the complainant and against the O.Ps. In the result, the complaint case succeeds. Fees paid is correct. Hence, it is,                                         ORDERED That the complaint case be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the O.Ps. with cost of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand). The O.Ps. are jointly and severally liable and are directed to refund the entire amount of Rs. 5,20,000/-(Rupees five lakh twenty thousand)  only along with 12% simple interest p.a. w.e.f. 03.04.2012 (date of payment of 1st installment) till the date of final realization within 45 days from the date of passing this order. The O.Ps. are jointly and severally liable and are directed to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) only for harassment, mental pain and agony and deficiency in service suffered by the complainant within 45 days from the date of passing this order. The O.Ps. are jointly and severally liable and are directed to pay litigation cost of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) to the complainant within 45 days from the date of passing this order. The Complainant is at liberty to put the order into execution after the expiry of 45 days if the orders are not complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of passing this order. Let a copy of the order be supplied free of cost to both the parties as per rules.               The Final order will be made available in www.confonet.nic.in. Dictated and corrected by me.             President

 

[ SHRI ASHOKE KUMAR PAL]

PRESIDENT

[ JAGADISH CHANDRA BARMAN]

MEMBER

AICTE REFUND POLICY / Judgment / Consumer Court / Consumer

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum South 24 Parganas Baruipur , Kolkata - 700 144.

Complaint Case No. CC/43/2019 ( Date of Filing : 15 Mar 2019 )   1. Biswapati Munian, S/O Lt. Surath Chandra Munian. residing at Village- Dinabandhupur, P.O. Rampur, P.S. Nandi gram, Dist. Purba Medinipur, Pin Code- 731631. ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. 1. The Registrar of Netaji Subhas Engineering College ( B- TECH ). Technno City, Garia, Kolkata- 700152. 2. 2. The Principle of Netaji Subhas Engineering Collage ( B- TECH ) Technno City, Gaira, Kolkata- 700152. ............Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE:     ANANTA KUMAR KAPRI PRESIDENT   SMT. JHUNU PRASAD MEMBER   JAGADISH CHANDRA BARMAN MEMBER

For the Complainant: For the Opp. Party:

Dated : 23 Sep 2019

Final Order / Judgement            DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM             SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS,              AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 144                       C.C. CASE NO. 43 OF 2019 DATE OF FILING: 15.03.2019                                                   DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 23.09.2019    Present                      :   President       :   Ananta Kumar Kapri                                         Member       :     Jhunu Prasad      Member       :     Jagadish Chandra Barman                                          COMPLAINANT              :  Biswapati Munian, S/O – Late Sweath Chandra Munian, Aged about 55 years, Indian inhabitant residing at Village – Dinabandhapur, P.O. – Rampur, P.S. – Nandigram, Dist. – Purba Medinipur, Pin code - 731631.  VERSUS   - O.P/O.Ps                         :  1. The Registrar of Netaji Subhas Engineering College (B-TECH), Techno City, Garia, Kolkata – 700152.                                                2. The Principal of Netaji Subhas Engineering College (B-TECH), Techno City, Garia, Kolkata – 700152. _______________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President             Facts leading to the filing of the instant case by the complainant may be epitomized as follows.             The complainant got his son admitted to the institute of O.P. nos. 1 and 2 i.e. Netaji Subhas Engineering College (N.S.E.C) in academic year 2018-19 to B.Tech course. During admission he paid Rs. 79,250/- to the institute in different phases. Thereafter, the son of the complainant left the institute and the complainant prayed for refund of entire fee i.e. Rs. 79,250/- to him. But, the college authority turned down the prayer of the complainant and such refusal on the part of the college authority has led the complainant to file the instant case alleging deficiency in service and praying for refund of the fee deposited by him with the institute and also for payment of compensation etc. Hence, this case.             The O.P. institute has filed W/V wherein it is contended that education is not a commodity and therefore the instant case is not maintainable in law. According to the O.P.s, the complainant is not entitled to get the refund of money as prayed for. There is no deficiency in service on their part and therefore the instant case should be dismissed in limini with cost.             Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.                                                          POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION Are the O.P.s guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant? Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for?             EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES     Petition of complaint is treated as evidence of him vide his petition dated 25.06.2019. Evidence on affidavit is filed by the O.P.s and the same is kept in record after consideration.                                                  DECISION WITH REASONS Point no. 1 and 2 :             Already heard the submissions of Ld. Lawyers appearing for the parties. Perused the petition of complaint, W/V and also the document filed on record on behalf of the parties. Considered all these.                     Now to see whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the fee deposited by him with the O.P. institute. It is not in dispute that the complainant deposited Rs. 79,250/- with the O.P. institute during his admission to the institute in B.Tech course. According to the complainant, he decided to discontinue his study and his decision was intimated to the O.P. institute by letter dated 09.09.2018 which was received by the institute on 11.09.2018. A copy of this letter has been filed on record by the complainant. The complainant has also filed on record the students’ copy of payment receipt issued by the O.P. institute. From this copy, it stands proved that the complainant was admitted to the institute on 04.09.2018 in academic session 2018-19 in 3 years B.Tech (lateral) course. On perusal of the letter dated 09.09.2018 of the complainant, which was received by the O.P. institute on 11.09.2018, it stands proved that complainant intimated the O.P.s his decision to discontinue his study in O.P. institute on 09.09.2018 i.e. only 5 days after his admission. These facts are found established on record. It has not been denied by the O.P. institute that the complainant paid Rs. 79,250/- as fee to the institute. All these facts go a long way to demonstrate that the complainant left the college before the starting of the course. The O.P.s do never say in W/V that the son of the complainant attended the course in the institute.             It is to be seen now whether the complainant is entitled to refund of the fees paid by him to the O.P. institute in the circumstances when he has left the college before starting of the course. To find answer to this question, we must take into our consideration one public notice issued by All India Council For Technical Education (AICTE), a xerox copy of which is filed on record by the complainant. The relevant portion of the said public notice is quoted as hereunder.                                                               AICTE  REFUND  POLICY             “In the event of a student / candidate withdrawing before the starting of the course, the entire fee collected from the student after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) shall be refunded/returned by the Institution. It would not be permissible for Institutions to retain the School/Institution Leaving Certificates in original. If a student leaves after joining the course and if the vacated seat is consequently filled by another student by the last date of admission, the Institution must refund the fee collected after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) and proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent, where applicable. In case the vacated seat is not filled, the Institution should refund the security deposit and return the original documents. Institution should not demand fee for the subsequent years from the students cancelling their admission at any point of time. Fee refund along with the return of Certificates should be completed within 7 days.”             In view of the above circular of AICTE, the complainant is found entitled to get refund of entire fee deposited by him with the O.P. college, subject to maximum deduction of Rs. 1,000/- only as processing fee. It has already been pointed out that the complainant has left this college before the starting of the course. There is no evidence in W/V to the effect that the complainant did not leave the college before the starting of the course. The documents filed on record overwhelmingly established that the son of the complainant left the college before the starting of course and therefore the complainant is entitled to get refund of entire fee deposited by him with the college subjected to deduction of maximum amount of Rs. 1,000/- only. The complainant has prayed for refund of such fee; he has also submitted application before the college authority i.e. the O.P.s. But the O.P.s have not released the said money to the complainant and it appears that the college authority cares a fig for the circular of AICTE. To defy the circular of AICTE and deliberate inability to act in compliance with the circular of AICTE are nothing but gross deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.s and this negligent act of the O.P.s has certainly been a source of harassment and mental agony to the complainant. The complainant is therefore entitled to get relief which is granted as hereunder.                                                   In the result, the case succeeds.             Hence,  ORDERED             That the complaint case be and the same is decreed on contest against the O.P.s with a cost of Rs. 10,000/-. O.P. nos. 1 and 2 are directed to refund Rs. 78,250/- to the complainant within a month of this order failing which they will have to refund the said amount with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of receipt till the date of full realization thereof and also have to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony to the complainant with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. upon compensation amount till full realization thereof.         Register-in-charge is directed to supply a free certified copy of this judgment atonce to the parties concerned.   I/We agree                                  Member                                Member                         President                         Directed and corrected by me                                                                President                         4

 

Put up Petition in Criminal case by the accused person / Metropolitan Magistrate Court Calcutta

 

In the Court of the Learned 11^th Metropolitan Magistrate Calcutta

 

                                                CS/ 108574/ 22

 

                                                          In the matter of ;

Fortune Credit Capital Limited,

                   ________Complainant

-      Versus –

Vijay Kumar Singh & Anr,

___________Accused

PUT-UP PETITION

Next Date 30/01/2023

The humble Petition of the above named accused persons, most respectfully;

Sheweth as under ;

 

1.   That the accused person Vijay Kumar Singh would surrender before the Learned Court seeking enlargement on Bail. The accused seeks necessary intervention of the Learned Court.

 

2.   That unless the Learned Court take up the Case record for necessary intervention, the accused persons will highly prejudice and suffer with irreparable loss and injury, thereof.

 

3.   That this application is made bonafide and in the interest of administration of Justice.

It is therefore prayed that your Honour would graciously be pleased to allow this put-up petition and to direct the Bench Clerk to put up the case record on board before the Learned Court for necessary intervention and consideration into the applications of the accused persons, in the interest of administration of Justice.

 

And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.