Complainant is entitled to execute and registration of the deed in his favour as per agreement and also entitled to compensation as he will have to bear the cost of registration as per present market value of the property

 

CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM

KOLKATA UNIT-III(South),West Bengal

18, Judges Court Road, Kolkata 700027

 

Complaint Case No. CC/109/2019 ( Date of Filing : 22 Feb 2019 )

1. Samir Chowdhury alias Samir Kumar Chowdhury S/o Lt. Ram Pada Chowdhury, 35/155, Mina Para Road, P.s.-Jadavpur, Kol-700092, Dist-South 24 Pgs. ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. M/S Usha Construction a Partnership Firm, Having its office at 2/5, Azadgarh, P.s.-Jadavpur, Kol-700040, Dist-24 Pgs(S). represented through its Partners. 2. Shri Susanta Das S/o Sudhir Chandra Das, 2/5, Ajadgarh, P.s.-Jadavpur, Kol-700040, Dist-South 24 Pgs. 3. Shri Sahadeb Chandra Saha S/o Lt. Radha Krishna Saha, 3/65,Ajadgarh, P.s.-Jadavpur, Kol-700040, Dist-South 24 Pgs. 4. Shri Parimal Das S/o Lt. Haripada Das, Residing at 5/239, Gandhi Colony, P.o.-Regent Estate, P.s.-Jadavpur, Kol-700092, District-South 24 Parganas. 5. Shri Bimal Das S/o Lt. Haripada Das, Residing at 5/239, Gandhi Colony, P.o.-Regent Estate, P.s.-Jadavpur, Kol-700092, District-South 24 Parganas. 6. Shri Kamal Das S/o Lt. Haripada Das, Residing at 5/239, Gandhi Colony, P.o.-Regent Estate, P.s.-Jadavpur, Kol-700092, District-South 24 Parganas. 7. Smt. Jharna Das W/o Shri Gurupada Das, D/o Lt. Haripada Das, Residing at 5/239, Gandhi Colony, P.o.-Regent Estate, P.s.-Jadavpur, Kol-700092, District-South 24 Parganas. 8. Shri Tapas Das S/o Shri Nemai Das, residing at A/5 Ananda Pally, P.o.-Bansdroni, P.s.-Regent Park, Kol-700070, Dist-South 24 Parganas. 9. Shri Rabi Das S/o Shri Nemai Das, residing at A/5 Ananda Pally, P.o.-Bansdroni, P.s.-Regent Park, Kol-700070, Dist-South 24 Parganas. 10. Shri Nemai Das residing at A/5 Ananda Pally, P.o.-Bansdroni, P.s.-Regent Park, Kol-700070, Dist-South 24 Parganas. ............Opp.Party(s)

 

BEFORE:
	HON'BLE MRS. Sashi Kala Basu PRESIDENT
	HON'BLE MRS. Balaka Chatterjee MEMBER

 

For the Complainant:

For the Opp. Party:

Dated : 11 Feb 2020

Final Order / Judgement

Dt. of filing – 22/02/2019 Dt. of Judgement – 11/02/2020 Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President         This consumer complaint is filed by the Complainant namely Samir Chowdhury under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties namely 1) M/s. Usha Construction 2) Shri Susanta Das 3) Shri Sahadeb Chandra Saha 4) Shri Parimal Das 5) Shri Bimal Das 6) Shri Kamal Das 7) Smt. Jharna Das 8) Shri Tapas Das 9) Shri Rabi Das and 10) Shri Nemai Das  alleging deficiency in service on their part.           Case of the Complainant in short is that predecessor in interest of Opposite Party No.4 to 6 namely Haripada Das since deceased was the owner in respect of the land measuring about 2 Cottahs 12 Chhitacks under Mouza Sibpur, E.P. No.228, S.P. No.268 under C.S. Plot No.363(P), 558(P) being K.M.C premises no.35/155 Mina Para Road under P.S. Jadavpur . Said Haripada Das died leaving behind three sons being Opposite Party No.4 to 6 and two daughters being Opposite Party No.7 and Sandhya Das who died subsequently leaving behind Opposite Party No.8 to 10. Said legal heirs of Haripada Das including Sandhya Das since deceased entered into a development agreement dated 9/1/2012 with the Opposite Party No.1 to3 to construct a 4 storied building. Subsequently Complainant entered into an agreement with the Opposite Party No.1 to 3 to purchase a flat described in the Schedule ‘B’ of the agreement for sale dated 14/3/2014 at a total consideration of Rs.14,20,000/-. Complainant has paid the entire consideration money to the Opposite Party No.1 to 3 and the possession of the said flat has also been delivered to the Complainant on 10/6/2014 by the developer Opposite Party No.1 to 3. After getting the possession, Complainant has requested to the Opposite Parties several times to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance but all in vain. Thus the present complaint has been filed by the Complainant praying for directing the Opposite Parties to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Complainant, to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-.           Complainant has annexed with the complaint, copy of the development agreement dated 9/1/2012, copy of the agreement for sale dated 14/3/2014, letter of possession, money receipts showing payment and the copy pf the notice sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties dated 26/11/2018 through his Ld. Advocate.           Opposite Party No.1 to 3 have contested the case by filing written version contending inter alia that after completion of the construction work, possession has already been handed over to the Complainant in respect of the flat as agreed but due to death of one of the co-owner namely Sandhya Das Power of Attorney executed in their favour lost its effect. Legal heirs of the said Sandhya Das being Opposite Party No.8 to 10 turned down the request of Developer Opposite Party No.1 to 3 for execution of supplementary development agreement and Power of Attorney. Opposite Party No.1 to 3 had no malafide intention in delaying the process of execution and registration of the Deed of Sale in favour of the Complainant.           On perusal of the record it appears that Opposite Party No.4 to 10 did not take any step inspite of service of notice and thus the case proceeded ex-parte against them.           During the course of the trial Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief but no questionnaire was filed by contesting Opposite Party. Neither they filed any evidence and thus ultimately argument was heard of both sides.           So the following points require determination: Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties? Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for? Decision with reasons           Both the points are taken up together for a comprehensive discussion.           In order to support his claim that by an agreement dated 14/3/2014 Complainant agreed to purchase a flat at a consideration of Rs.14,20,000/- and has paid the entire amount of consideration, Complainant has filed, copy of the said agreement and the receipts.           On perusal of the receipts it appears that entire payment of consideration price has been made by the Complainant. Payment has also not been disputed and denied by Opposite Party No.1 to 3. Neither there is any denial by them about execution of the agreement in favour of the Complainant on 14/3/2014. Admittedly the possession of the flat as per agreement has been handed over to the Complainant and to this effect letter of possession dated 10/6/2014 has also been filed. However, it appears from the agreement for sale that Opposite Party No.1 a partnership firm being represented by Opposite Party No.2 & 3 entered into the said agreement with the Complainant in their capacity as developer, as there is no reflection that they also represented as Constituted Attorney of the owners. But from the copy of the development agreement entered between Opposite Party No.1 to 3 with Opposite Party No.4 to 7 and the predecessor in interest of Opposite Party No.8 to 10 dated 9/1/2012, it is apparent that there is specific recital in paragraph 27 that the developer was entitled to transfer the flat in his allocation to different intending purchaser and the owners will be bound to sign in the agreement and the deed to be executed in favour of those intending purchaser. So on consideration of the said specific terms in the development agreement, the owners are liable to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Complainant. In such a situation, Complainant is entitled to execute and registration  of the deed in his favour as per agreement and also entitled to compensation as he will have to bear the cost of registration as per present market value of the property. So an amount of Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- will be justified. Hence,                      ORDERED CC/109/2019 is allowed on contest against Opposite Party No.1 to 3 and ex-parte against Opposite Party No.4 to 10. Opposite Parties are directed to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Complainant in respect of the flat as per agreement dated 14/3/2014 within 2(Two) months from the date of this order. They are further directed to pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost within the aforesaid period of 2(Two) months.

 

[HON'BLE MRS. Sashi Kala Basu]

PRESIDENT

[HON'BLE MRS. Balaka Chatterjee]

MEMBER

Plot of Land Sold but did not develop as agreed by the Developer therefore Purchaser is a Consumer

 

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

South 24 Parganas

Baruipur , Kolkata - 700 144.

 

Complaint Case No. CC/108/2019 ( Date of Filing : 01 Aug 2019 )

1. Sri Sutanu Bhadra, S/O Sudhendu Bhadra. residing at Titas Apartment, Flat No. 1 B, 224, Rajdanga Road, P.S.- Kasba, Kolkata- 700107. ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. 1. Baram Deo Singh, S/O Late Sudama Singh. 16, New Ballygunge Road, P.S.- Tiljala, Kolkata- 700039. 2. 2. Rabindranath Mukhopadhyay alias Mukherjee. S/O Late Harihar Mukhopadhyay. 13, Hemchandra Street, P.S.- Watgunj, Kolkata- 700023. ............Opp.Party(s)

 

BEFORE:
	ASISH KUMAR SENAPATI PRESIDENT
	Mrs. Sangita Paul MEMBER

 

PRESENT:

Dated : 05 Jan 2022

Final Order / Judgement

22...05.01.2022.. Today is fixed for delivery of judgment/final order. Final order contains 4 pages is ready. It is sealed, signed and delivered in open Forum/Commission. It is,                                                               ORDERED That the complaint case be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the O.P. No. 1 with cost of Rs. 10,000/- and dismissed ex-parte against the O.P. No. 2 without cost.             The O.P. No. 1 is directed to refund the advance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with interest @6% p.a. w.e.f. 16.04.2015 (the date of last payment) till realization of the entire amount to the complainant by 90 days from the date of this order. The O.P. No. 1 is also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for mental pain and agony and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant within 90 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. 108  OF 2019   DATE OF FILING                         DATE OF ADMISSION              DATE OF FINAL ORDER      01.08.2019                                      20.08.2019                                   05.01.2022   Present                                             :  President   :  Asish Kumar Senapati                                                               Member     :  Sangita Paul                                                                COMPLAINANT                              :1. Sri Sutanu Bhadra, Residing at Titas Apartment, Flat No. – 1B, 224 Rajdanga Road, P.S. – Kasba, Kolkata-700107.                                             Versus O.P/O.Ps                                          : 1. Sri Baram Deo Singh, 16 New Ballygunge Road, P.S. – Tiljala, Kolkata – 700039.                                                             2. Rabindra Nath Mukherjee, S/o-Late Harihar Mukherjee, 13 Hemchandra Street,  P.S. – Watgang, Kolkata – 700023.  Advocate for the Complainant : Sri Suvendu Das Advocate for the O.Ps. : Mr. Samsul Alam  Sri Asish Kumar Senapati, President One Sri Sutanu Bhadra (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) filed the case against Sri Baram Deo Singh and another (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for either refund of advance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-  with interest @ 18% p.a. till realization of  the entire amount or to deliver possession of the plot by executing and registering the deed of conveyance, compensation and litigation cost against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service.               The sum and substance of the complaint is as follows:              The complainant entered into an agreement for sale with the O.P. No. 1 at a consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- out of which Rs. 16,500/- was paid at the time of agreement and the rest amount was agreed to be paid by 45 installments. Accordingly, the complainant paid the entire amount but the O.Ps. did not develop the land in question and no deed of conveyance is registered in favour of the complainant in spite of repeated demands. Hence, the complainant has filed the case praying for a direction upon the O.Ps. for hand over the possession of the plot as per agreement dated 22.03.2011 coupled with execution and registration of deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant or in the alternative refund of money paid by the complainant with interest @ 18% p.a., compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/-.             The O.P. No. 1 contested the case by filing W.V. contending that the alleged agreement for sale dated 22.03.2011 was executed without consideration and so the said agreement is invalid. That the complainant paid only Rs. 73,500/- by monthly installments @Rs. 1,500/- in 49 installments. The complainant is at fault of non-payment of balance amount of Rs. 26,500/-.  The complainant is not entitled to get 10% discount over the consideration price for no-fulfillment of the terms of agreement. Hence, the case may be dismissed with cost.             The O.P. No. 2 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  a 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 no. 1 :-             The Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that the complainant entered into an agreement with the O.P. No. 1 for sale on 22.03.2011 on certain terms and conditions and paid Rs. 1,00,000/- as consideration. It is urged that the O.Ps. did not develop  the land in spite of lapse of the period mentioned in the agreement. He submits that the complainant is a consumer. In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the O.P. No. 1 submits that the complainant is not a consumer. We have gone through the materials on record and considered the submission of both sides. We find that the complainant and the O.P. No. 1  entered into an agreement dated 22.03.2011 on certain terms and conditions and the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 entered into agreement dated 03.02.2011 in respect of the property in question authorizing the O.P. No. 1 to sell the land. It is the allegation of the complainant that the O.P. No. 1 failed to develop the land even after a considerable period. The O.P. No. 1 has failed to substantiate that he has developed the land in question in terms of the agreement. Hence, we hold that the complainant is a consumer.   Point nos. 2 & 3 :-             The Ld. Advocate for the complainants submits that the complainant paid Rs. 1,00,000/- as consideration amount and it is stated by the O.P. No. 1 in para-7 of the W.V. that the complainant paid only Rs. 73,500/-. It is urged that the O.P. No. 1 has not yet developed the land in terms of agreement dated 22.03.2011 and he is also silent about the fate of the project. He contends that the O.P. No. 1 may be directed to refund the advance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest @18% p.a. till realization. It is also submitted that the complainant is entitled to get compensation and litigation cost against the O.P. No. 1. Per contra, the Ld. Advocate for the O.P. No. 1 submits that the O.P. No. 1 has no deficiency in service and the complainant is at fault for non-payment of rest consideration amount. It is contended that the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation and litigation cost against the O.P. No. 1. We have gone through the materials on record and consider the submission of both sides. Admittedly, the complainant entered into an agreement for sale with the O.P. No. 1 on 22.03.2011 on certain terms and conditions including development of the land in question. On going through the photocopies of documents, we find that the complainant paid Rs. 1,00,000/- to the O.P. No. 1 up to 16.04.2015. We find that the O.P. No. 1 has deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to get back his advance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- with simple interest @6% p.a. w.e.f. 16.04.2015 (the date of last payment) till realization of the entire amount.  In our considered opinion, the complainant is also entitled to get compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for mental pain and agony and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- against the O.P. No. 1. We find that there is no cause of action between the complainant and the O.P. No. 2 as there is no privity of contract between them.             Both points are thus disposed of.             In the result, the complaint case succeeds.             Fees paid are corrected.               Hence,                                                               ORDERED          That the complaint case be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the O.P. No. 1 with cost of Rs. 10,000/- and dismissed ex-parte against the O.P. No. 2 without cost.             The O.P. No. 1 is directed to refund the advance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with interest @6% p.a. w.e.f. 16.04.2015 (the date of last payment) till realization of the entire amount to the complainant by 90 days from the date of this order. The O.P. No. 1 is also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for mental pain and agony and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant within 90 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

while car parking space was not sanctioned by Rajpur Sonarpur Municipality

 

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

South 24 Parganas

Baruipur , Kolkata - 700 144.

 

Complaint Case No. CC/101/2021 ( Date of Filing : 31 Aug 2021 )

1. Mr. Subrata Chakraborty S/ O- Sri Chandan Bihari Lal Chakraborty 121, Swami Vivekananda Road, P.O- Uttar Khurite, P.S- Shibpur, Dist- Howrah, Pin- 711101 Presently residing at Premises No. 596, Nabagram Panchpota, 3rd Floor, Near Boys' Club, P.O- Panchpota, P.S- sonarpur, Kol-700152, S 24 Pgs ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. Smt. Manju Roy W/O- Late Paritosh Kumar Roy 8/22, Bijoygarh P.O- Jadavpur University, P.S- Jadavpur, Kol-700032 2. Smt Tania Biswas Roy D/O- Late Paritosh Kumar Roy 8/22, Bijoygarh P.O- Jadavpur University, P.S- Jadavpur, Kol-700032 3. Smt Papiya Mitra Roy D/O- Late Paritosh Kumar Roy Nabagram, P.O- Panchpota, P.S- Sonarpur, Kol-700152 4. Sri Ashim Kumar Roy S/O- Pramatha Nath Roy 8/22, Bijoygarh P.O- Jadavpur University, P.S- Jadavpur, Kol-700032 5. Manjuri, Proprietor Sri Paritosh Mondal Tentulberia, P.O- Garia, P.S- Sonarpur, Kol-700084 6. Sri Paritosh Mondal S/O- Sri Manik Mondal Garia Natundiara, P.O- Nayabad, P.S- Sonarpur, Kol-700150 ............Opp.Party(s)

 

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

 

PRESENT:

Dated : 29 Jul 2022

Final Order / Judgement

Smt. Sangita Paul, Member This is a case filed by Shri Subrata Chakraborty,  son of Chandan Bihari Lal Chakraborty of 121, Swami Vivekananda Road, Howrah, Pin -711 101, at present residing at Sonarpur, Kolkata-700 152, Dist.-24 Pgs (South) against Smt. Manju Roy, W/o. Late Paritosh Kumar Roy, Smt. Tania Biswas @ Roy, D/o. Late Paritosh Kumar Roy, Smt Papia Mitra @ Roy D/o. Late Paritosh Kumar Roy, Sri Ashim Kumar Roy S/o. Pramatha Nath Roy, Manjuri, a firm represented by proprietor Sri Paritosh Mondal and Sri Paritosh Mondal with a prayer for a direction to the OPs to regularize the said car parking space by obtaining completion certificate and revised plan in respect of the said car parking space or to refund back the entire consideration amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand) only in respect of the said car parking space with statutory interest of 12% taken by him from the complainant, to pay Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) only towards compensation for suffering of the complainant from prolonged harassment and mental pain and agony owing to wrongful acts of the OPs, to pay Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) only as the adequate exemplary cost of litigation to complainant. OP No.1 is Smt. Manju Roy.  She is the wife of Late Paritosh Kumar Roy. OP No.2 is Smt. Tania Biswas @ Roy.  She is the daughter of Late Paritosh Kumar Roy. OPs 1 and 2 are residing at 8/22, Bijoygarh, P.O.-Jadavpur University, P.S.-Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 032. OP No.3 is Smt. Papia Mitra @ Roy, daughter of Late Paritosh Kumar Roy, residing at Nabagram, P.O.-Panchpota, P.S.-Sonarpur, Kolkata-700 152. OP No.4 is Sri Ashim Kumar Roy.  He is the son of Pramatha Nath Roy, residing at 8/22, Bijoygarh, P.O. – Jadavpur University, P.S.-Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 032. OP No.5 is Manjuri.  OP No.5 is a proprietorship firm, represented by its proprietor Sri Paritosh Mondal.  The registered office is situated at Tetulberia, P.O.-Garia, P.S. – Sonarpur, Kolkaa-700 084. OP No.6 is Sri Paritosh Mondal.  He is the son of Sri Manik Mondal residing at Garia Natundiara, P.O.-Nayabad, P.S.-Sonarpur, Kolkata-700 150. Complainant by filing this case states that a Deed of Conveyance was executed on 06.06.2018 and complainant purchased a self-contained flat from the Developer’s allocation, on the 3rd floor of G+III storied building which was constructed over land 6.2/3 decimals of land, equivalent to 4 (four) cottahs, 23 Sq.ft. comprising of several flats and car parking space on the basis of Development Agreement by OPs 1 to 4 and the Developer being premises No.596, Nabagram comprised in C.S. Dag No,106, R.S. Dag No.113, L.R. Dag No.113, R.S. Khatian No.319 in Mouza Kamarabad, J.L. No.41, P.O. – Panchpota, P.S.-Sonarpur, Kolkata-700 152. The complainant also booked a car-parking space in the said building and the developer offered him a car parking space on the west corner portion of back side as depicted in the sanctioned plan on 06.06.2018.  The complainant at a valuable consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- only from developer’s allocation purchased a car parking space, measuring about 120 Sq.ft. by virtue of Deed of Conveyance duly executed by the OPs and duly registered.  Afterwards complainant was informed by the Developer that it was the South East Front side, instead of back West.  Accordingly a rectification deed was executed and registered on 03.07.2019.  But complainant was obstructed by flat owners as he went to park his four wheeler at the new site.  The complainant was informed by the flat owners, that the South East from side was a common space.  The developer assured complainant that the problem would be solved, but with no result.  The complainant lodged a complaint to the Assistant Director, Department of Consumer Affairs.  The new car parking space was not sanctioned by Rajpur Sonarpur Municipality. Complainant was told that he would get the money back if the Revised Sanctioned Plan was not obtained.  Neither the complainant received back the money nor the deed of conveyance in respect of the car parking place which was registered in the name of complainant because the deed of conveyance executed was not a valid one.  OP No.6 practiced fraud upon the complainant.  Finding no other alternative complainant lodged the complaint. Complainant is a consumer.  The cause of action arose on 06.06.2018 when the deed of conveyance was executed by the OPs in favour of complainant and on 08.09.2020 when CA & FBP advised complainant to lodge complaint and is continuing till date.  Hence, complainant prays for directing the OPs to regularize the said car parking space by obtaining completion certificate and Revised Plan in respect of the said car parking space or to refund back the entire consideration amount of Rs.2,50,000/- only in respect of the said car parking space with statutory interest of 12% taken by him from the complainant through execution and registration of cancellation of the deed of conveyance, to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for suffering of complainant from prolonged harassment and mental pain and agony owing to wrongful and detrimental acts of the OPs, to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as the adequate exemplary cost of litigation to complainant.  The case was filed on 31.08.2021.  The case was admitted on 14.09.2021.  Notices upon OPs 1, 2 and 4 have been served.  OP No.3 refused to accept the notice. Refusal amounts to good service.  Notice was not served upon OPs 5 and 6.  On 17.11.2021, complainant was directed to publish the notice in the newspaper.   Notice was published on 21.11.2021 in the ‘Aajkal’.  None appears on behalf of the OPs 5 and 6.  No W/V was filed by the OPs 1, 2, 3 and 4.  By order dated 17.11.2021, the case proceeded exparte against OPs 1, 2, 3 and 4.   On 22.12.2021 the case proceeded exparte against the OPs 5 and 6.  Because OPs 5 and 6 did not turn up to contest the case.  Argument was heard on 23.06.2022  and we proceeded for giving judgement.       Points of 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 1.  On perusal of records and documents, it appears, that complainant purchased a flat along with a car parking space in G+III storied building on the basis of Development Agreement executed between OPs 1 to 4 (the landowner) and the Developer as per development Agreement being premises No.596, Nabagram, comprised in C.S. Dag No.106, R.S. Dag No.113, L.R. Dag No.113, R.S. Khatian No.319, in Mouza Kamarabad, J.L.No.41, Parganas – Madanmolla, P.O.-Panchpota, P.S. – Sonarpur, Kolkata-700 152 plot of land in Rs.S. Dag No,87 is to the North of the scheduled plot of complainant with car parking space.  Plot of land in R.S. Dag No,113(P) is situated to the South of the scheduled plot.  16 feet-wide Municipal Road is situated to the East of the subject plot and plot of land in R.S. Dag no.112 is situated on the South of the scheduled plot.  Complainant bought the car parking space in the subject plot, where he bought a flat.  Complainant bought the car parking space with a valuable consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and fifty thousand) only from the Developer’s allocation.  The car parking space measured about 120 Sq. ft.  The said car parking space was purchased by virtue of the Deed of Conveyance duly executed by the OPs for which the complainant paid the amount of consideration.  As the complainant paid the entire consideration amount in respect of the subject car parking space, he is a consumer u/s 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  OPs did not turn up to contradict the aforementioned statement.  So the 1st point is settled in favour of complainant.    2.  The OPs (Developer) i.e. OPs 5 and 6, did not act following the rule.  Complainant paid the full amount of consideration on 06.06.2018.  He paid Rs.2,50,0000/- (Rupees two lakhs and fifty thousand) only, to the Developer, but complainant did not get his car parking space.  As complainant, resides in the said building, he was desirous to buy car parking space in the same building, for which, he fulfilled all the formalities, OPs were deficient in rendering proper service to complainant.  Complainant sold the car parking space situated to the West corner of the back side.  Accordingly, the deed of conveyance was executed on 06.06.2018.  Afterwards he was told that it was wrong, his car parking is situated at South-East-Front side.  As a result, a deed of conveyance was executed on 03.07.2019.  In fact, it was a common space used by the flat owners.  Complainant failed to submit any sanctioned plan demarcating the new car parking space.  In view of the above noted facts complainant was supposed to get back the price of the said car parking space through cancellation of the revised deed of conveyance. Complainant did not get the same.  The developer (OP No.6) must be penalized for such unfair trade practice.  The OP collected the money but complainant had to return with empty hand.   Neither the complainant received back the money, nor he was handed over the car parking space.  Hence, the 2nd point is settled in favour of complainant.   3.  OP No.6 sold the 2nd car parking space knowing fully well that the space was not sanctioned by Rajpur Sonarpur Municipality.  OP executed the revised Deed of Conveyance by suppressing the material fact, because they wanted to earn money at any cost.  The complainant paid the amount of consideration to get the car parking space.  Complainant failed to get the car parking space.  Complainant failed to get the revised sanctioned plan and completion certificate in respect of the said car parking space.  Complainant made valid payment, but failed to use the said car parking space.  It appears that the said car parking space was sold to other purchasers.  Hence complainant is entitled to get relief.  The 3rd point is settled in favour of complainant.       In the result, the complaint case succeeds.        Hence, it is,                                                                                                  ORDERED That the complaint case be and the same is hereby allowed exparte with cost of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) against the O.Ps. 5 and 6. That the O.Ps. jointly or severally are directed to regularize the said car parking space by obtaining completion certificate and revised plan in respect of the said car parking space and to hand over the same to the complainant.                                                                                                        Or That the OPs 5 and 6 jointly  or severally are directed to refund the entire consideration amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and fifty thousand) only with simple interest @10% p.a. w.e.f. 06.06.2018 in respect of the said car parking space to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order. That the OPs 5 and 6 jointly or severally are directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only to complainant within the stipulated period of 60 days and the cost of litigation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) is to be paid by the OPs 5 and 6 within the stipulated period of 60 days. That the complainant is at liberty to put the order into execution is the orders are not complied with within the stipulated period of 60 days.  Let a copy of the order be supplied free of cost to the parties concerned.                            That the Final order will be made available in www.confonet.nic.in .               Dictated and corrected by me                                                           Sangita Paul                                        Member

 

[ SHRI ASHOKE KUMAR PAL]

PRESIDENT

[ JAGADISH CHANDRA BARMAN]

MEMBER

[ SMT. SANGITA PAUL]

MEMBER

Consumer Judgment against India mart Intermesh Ltd

 

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

South 24 Parganas

Baruipur , Kolkata - 700 144.

 

Complaint Case No. CC/105/2021 ( Date of Filing : 03 Sep 2021 )

1. Abdul Mannan Sardar 1 No Dighir Par, Canning Girls' School Para, P.O & P.S- Canning, S 24 Pgs, PIN-743329 ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. India Mart Intermesh Ltd 6th Floor , Tower 2, Assotech Business Crestarra, Plot No.22, Sec 135, Noida- 201305, Uttarpradesh ............Opp.Party(s)

 

BEFORE:
	SHRI DEBASISH BANDYOPADHYAY PRESIDENT
	JAGADISH CHANDRA BARMAN MEMBER
	SMT. SANGITA PAUL MEMBER

 

PRESENT:

Dated : 05 May 2022

Final Order / Judgement

10………….05.05.2021……………..   Today is fixed for delivery of Judgment/final order. Final order containing 5 pages is ready for delivery. It is sealed, signed and delivered in open Forum/Commission. It is,                                                             ORDERED That this complaint case be and same is allowed ex-parte. It is held that complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the respondent / O.P of this case and the complainant is further entitled to get compensation of Rs. 15,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- form the respondent / O.P. The respondent/ O.P. of this case is directed to pay Rs. 1,20,000/- to the complainant of this case within two months from the date of this order otherwise the complainant is given liberty to execute the order as per law. Thus this complaint case be and same is disposed of ex-parte.    Let a copy of the order be sent / supplied at free of cost to the parties concerned. The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION           SOUTH 24-PARGANAS         AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 144 C.C. NO._105_  OF 2021   DATE OF FILING                         DATE OF ADMISSION              DATE OF FINAL ORDER      03.09.2021                                      27.09.2021                                   05.05.2022   Present                                             :  President   :  Debasish Bandyopadhyay                                                                Member      :  Jagadish Chandra Barman                                                               Member     :  Sangita Paul                                                                COMPLAINANT                              : Abdul Mannan Sardar, 1 No. Dighir Par, Canning Girls’s School Para, P.S.- Canning, South 24 Parganas, Pin – 743329.                                        Versus O.P/O.Ps                                          : Indiamart Intermesh Ltd.,                                                             6th floor, Tower 2, Assotech Business Cresterra, Plot No. – 22, Sector – 135, Noida - 201305, Uttar Pradesh.   Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President Brief facts of this case:- The case of the petitioner/ complainant in bird’s eye view is that he is an Indian citizen and has been residing at the address given in the cause title and for the purpose of his livelihood, decided to purchase different oils of fortune brand and the O.P. has provided the complainant the details of a supplier namely SK. Hasanujjman having address E-265, Baishnab Ghata, Patuli, Kolkata – 700094 and thereafter the complainant had made contact with the above noted supplier for supplying different oils of Fortune brand at the residence of the complainant and the said supplier had informed the complainant to pay 50% of the actual quoted amount and then the complainant had paid an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- but surprisingly the deal of the complainant with the above noted supplier was cancelled. It is alleged that the complainant thereafter had made contact with the O.P. for several times either with electronic mail or by sending letters    and thereafter the O.P. informed the complainant that the said refund will be generated on behalf of the complainant within seven working days but surprisingly the complainant noticed that the amount paid by the complainant has been transferred to the supplier on 9th October, 2020 leaving the complainant utterly clueless. It has been pointed out by the complainant that instead of refund the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-, the O.P. started ignoring and violating the refund request  of the complainant although as per promise of the O.P. had to deliver quality product and services to the complainant, the O.P. has miserable failed to do so for which the complainant had to suffer severe loss and became the victim of the purported act of O.P. It is further alleged that series of misconducts from the O.P. has caused a lot of mental agony and harassment to the complainant and thereafter the complainant tried hard to resolve the issue but all the effort of the complainant ended in fiasco. It has also been mentioned by the complainant that thereafter the complainant had sent a legal notice to the O.P. on 29.10.2020 but the O.P. has neither provided the good nor refunded the money. As per version of the complainant side such activities of the O.P. is gross deviation from the service and so complainant has prayed for refunding back the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with compensation  to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- and also prayed for cost of litigation.             The O.P. inspite of receiving notice has neither appeared in this case nor has filed W.V. and as a result of which the District Commission vide order No. 6 dated 10.12.2021 has passed the order that this case is to be proceeded ex-parte against the O.P.                    POINTS OF CONSIDERATION             On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the District Commission for the interest of proper and complete adjudication of this case is going to adopt the following points for consideration:- In this case maintainable in its present form and in the eye of law? Is there any cause of action for filing this case by the complainant? Whether the complainant is a consumer in the eye of law? Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the O.P.?  What other relief or remedy is the complainant entitled to get in this case?        EVIDENCE ON RECORD             In order to prove the case the complainant has filed evidence on affidavit by himself and also produced series of documents. As the respondent/O.P. is not contesting this case no questionnaire has been filed by the O.P. against the evidence of the complainant.    ARGUMENT HIGHLIGHTED BY THE LD. LAWYER OF THE COMPLAINANT                Regarding this matter it is important to note that the complainant has filed brief notes of argument and in addition to that the Ld. Lawyer of the complainant also highlighted verbal submission at the time of argument.                DECISIONS WITH REASONS             The first three issues which have been framed of the point of maintainability, cause of action and whether complainant is a consumer in the eye of law, are vital issues and so these three issues are taken up for consideration at first.             In this regard it is important to note that as the O.P. has not challenged oral testimony of the complainant and also not challenged documents filed by the complainant. So, the District Commission shall have to rely on the oral and documentary evidence given by the complainant. In this regard the District Commission after going through the oral and documentary evidence of the record finds that this case is maintainable and there is cause of action for the complainant to file this case and the complainant is also a consumer in the eye of law. Thus, the first three issues are decided in favour of the complainant side.             The points of consideration depicted in serial No. 4 and serial No.5 are clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly. For the purpose of proper and complete adjudication of these above noted two issues which are related with the question whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the O.P. or not and whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and litigation cost in this case or not, there is urgent need of scanning the material of this case record.             For the purpose of deciding the fate of the above noted two questions and for the purpose of getting answer of the above noted two questions, this District Commission finds that there is necessity of scanning of oral and documentary evidence. In this regard it is important to note that the evidence given by the complainant side has neither been challenged nor been controverter by the O.P. side as no questionnaire has been filed by the O.P. Thus, it is crystal clear that there is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged and uncontroverted oral testimony and documentary evidence given by the complainant.  After going through the evidence given by the complainant and documents filed by the complainant, this District Commission finds that the complainant has paid Rs. 1,00,000/- for getting supply of different types of oils of Fortune Brand from the O.P. but the O.P. has neither supplied the oil nor refunded the money. This matter is clearly depicting that there is gross deviation of service on the part of the O.P. / respondent of this case and for that reason the complainant has suffered financial and economic loss and also has incurred cost of litigation. A cumulative consideration of the above noted discussion goes to show that the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the respondent / O.P. of this case and complainant is also entitled to get compensation and cost of litigation. So, it is accordingly,                                                             ORDERED That this complaint case be and same is allowed ex-parte. It is held that complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the respondent / O.P of this case and the complainant is further entitled to get compensation of Rs. 15,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- form the respondent / O.P. The respondent/ O.P. of this case is directed to pay Rs. 1,20,000/- to the complainant of this case within two months from the date of this order otherwise the complainant is given liberty to execute the order as per law. Thus this complaint case be and same is disposed of ex-parte.     Let a copy of the order be sent / supplied at 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.       Debasish Bandyopadhyay                    President

 

[ SHRI DEBASISH BANDYOPADHYAY]

PRESIDENT

[ JAGADISH CHANDRA BARMAN]

MEMBER

[ SMT. SANGITA PAUL]

MEMBER

Complainant was told that he would get the money back if the Revised Sanctioned Plan was not obtained

 

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

South 24 Parganas

Baruipur , Kolkata - 700 144.

 

Complaint Case No. CC/101/2021 ( Date of Filing : 31 Aug 2021 )

1. Mr. Subrata Chakraborty S/ O- Sri Chandan Bihari Lal Chakraborty 121, Swami Vivekananda Road, P.O- Uttar Khurite, P.S- Shibpur, Dist- Howrah, Pin- 711101 Presently residing at Premises No. 596, Nabagram Panchpota, 3rd Floor, Near Boys' Club, P.O- Panchpota, P.S- sonarpur, Kol-700152, S 24 Pgs ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. Smt. Manju Roy W/O- Late Paritosh Kumar Roy 8/22, Bijoygarh P.O- Jadavpur University, P.S- Jadavpur, Kol-700032 2. Smt Tania Biswas Roy D/O- Late Paritosh Kumar Roy 8/22, Bijoygarh P.O- Jadavpur University, P.S- Jadavpur, Kol-700032 3. Smt Papiya Mitra Roy D/O- Late Paritosh Kumar Roy Nabagram, P.O- Panchpota, P.S- Sonarpur, Kol-700152 4. Sri Ashim Kumar Roy S/O- Pramatha Nath Roy 8/22, Bijoygarh P.O- Jadavpur University, P.S- Jadavpur, Kol-700032 5. Manjuri, Proprietor Sri Paritosh Mondal Tentulberia, P.O- Garia, P.S- Sonarpur, Kol-700084 6. Sri Paritosh Mondal S/O- Sri Manik Mondal Garia Natundiara, P.O- Nayabad, P.S- Sonarpur, Kol-700150 ............Opp.Party(s)

 

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

 

PRESENT:

Dated : 29 Jul 2022

Final Order / Judgement

Smt. Sangita Paul, Member This is a case filed by Shri Subrata Chakraborty,  son of Chandan Bihari Lal Chakraborty of 121, Swami Vivekananda Road, Howrah, Pin -711 101, at present residing at Sonarpur, Kolkata-700 152, Dist.-24 Pgs (South) against Smt. Manju Roy, W/o. Late Paritosh Kumar Roy, Smt. Tania Biswas @ Roy, D/o. Late Paritosh Kumar Roy, Smt Papia Mitra @ Roy D/o. Late Paritosh Kumar Roy, Sri Ashim Kumar Roy S/o. Pramatha Nath Roy, Manjuri, a firm represented by proprietor Sri Paritosh Mondal and Sri Paritosh Mondal with a prayer for a direction to the OPs to regularize the said car parking space by obtaining completion certificate and revised plan in respect of the said car parking space or to refund back the entire consideration amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand) only in respect of the said car parking space with statutory interest of 12% taken by him from the complainant, to pay Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) only towards compensation for suffering of the complainant from prolonged harassment and mental pain and agony owing to wrongful acts of the OPs, to pay Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) only as the adequate exemplary cost of litigation to complainant. OP No.1 is Smt. Manju Roy.  She is the wife of Late Paritosh Kumar Roy. OP No.2 is Smt. Tania Biswas @ Roy.  She is the daughter of Late Paritosh Kumar Roy. OPs 1 and 2 are residing at 8/22, Bijoygarh, P.O.-Jadavpur University, P.S.-Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 032. OP No.3 is Smt. Papia Mitra @ Roy, daughter of Late Paritosh Kumar Roy, residing at Nabagram, P.O.-Panchpota, P.S.-Sonarpur, Kolkata-700 152. OP No.4 is Sri Ashim Kumar Roy.  He is the son of Pramatha Nath Roy, residing at 8/22, Bijoygarh, P.O. – Jadavpur University, P.S.-Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 032. OP No.5 is Manjuri.  OP No.5 is a proprietorship firm, represented by its proprietor Sri Paritosh Mondal.  The registered office is situated at Tetulberia, P.O.-Garia, P.S. – Sonarpur, Kolkaa-700 084. OP No.6 is Sri Paritosh Mondal.  He is the son of Sri Manik Mondal residing at Garia Natundiara, P.O.-Nayabad, P.S.-Sonarpur, Kolkata-700 150. Complainant by filing this case states that a Deed of Conveyance was executed on 06.06.2018 and complainant purchased a self-contained flat from the Developer’s allocation, on the 3rd floor of G+III storied building which was constructed over land 6.2/3 decimals of land, equivalent to 4 (four) cottahs, 23 Sq.ft. comprising of several flats and car parking space on the basis of Development Agreement by OPs 1 to 4 and the Developer being premises No.596, Nabagram comprised in C.S. Dag No,106, R.S. Dag No.113, L.R. Dag No.113, R.S. Khatian No.319 in Mouza Kamarabad, J.L. No.41, P.O. – Panchpota, P.S.-Sonarpur, Kolkata-700 152. The complainant also booked a car-parking space in the said building and the developer offered him a car parking space on the west corner portion of back side as depicted in the sanctioned plan on 06.06.2018.  The complainant at a valuable consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- only from developer’s allocation purchased a car parking space, measuring about 120 Sq.ft. by virtue of Deed of Conveyance duly executed by the OPs and duly registered.  Afterwards complainant was informed by the Developer that it was the South East Front side, instead of back West.  Accordingly a rectification deed was executed and registered on 03.07.2019.  But complainant was obstructed by flat owners as he went to park his four wheeler at the new site.  The complainant was informed by the flat owners, that the South East from side was a common space.  The developer assured complainant that the problem would be solved, but with no result.  The complainant lodged a complaint to the Assistant Director, Department of Consumer Affairs.  The new car parking space was not sanctioned by Rajpur Sonarpur Municipality. Complainant was told that he would get the money back if the Revised Sanctioned Plan was not obtained.  Neither the complainant received back the money nor the deed of conveyance in respect of the car parking place which was registered in the name of complainant because the deed of conveyance executed was not a valid one.  OP No.6 practiced fraud upon the complainant.  Finding no other alternative complainant lodged the complaint. Complainant is a consumer.  The cause of action arose on 06.06.2018 when the deed of conveyance was executed by the OPs in favour of complainant and on 08.09.2020 when CA & FBP advised complainant to lodge complaint and is continuing till date.  Hence, complainant prays for directing the OPs to regularize the said car parking space by obtaining completion certificate and Revised Plan in respect of the said car parking space or to refund back the entire consideration amount of Rs.2,50,000/- only in respect of the said car parking space with statutory interest of 12% taken by him from the complainant through execution and registration of cancellation of the deed of conveyance, to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for suffering of complainant from prolonged harassment and mental pain and agony owing to wrongful and detrimental acts of the OPs, to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as the adequate exemplary cost of litigation to complainant.  The case was filed on 31.08.2021.  The case was admitted on 14.09.2021.  Notices upon OPs 1, 2 and 4 have been served.  OP No.3 refused to accept the notice. Refusal amounts to good service.  Notice was not served upon OPs 5 and 6.  On 17.11.2021, complainant was directed to publish the notice in the newspaper.   Notice was published on 21.11.2021 in the ‘Aajkal’.  None appears on behalf of the OPs 5 and 6.  No W/V was filed by the OPs 1, 2, 3 and 4.  By order dated 17.11.2021, the case proceeded exparte against OPs 1, 2, 3 and 4.   On 22.12.2021 the case proceeded exparte against the OPs 5 and 6.  Because OPs 5 and 6 did not turn up to contest the case.  Argument was heard on 23.06.2022  and we proceeded for giving judgement.       Points of 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 1.  On perusal of records and documents, it appears, that complainant purchased a flat along with a car parking space in G+III storied building on the basis of Development Agreement executed between OPs 1 to 4 (the landowner) and the Developer as per development Agreement being premises No.596, Nabagram, comprised in C.S. Dag No.106, R.S. Dag No.113, L.R. Dag No.113, R.S. Khatian No.319, in Mouza Kamarabad, J.L.No.41, Parganas – Madanmolla, P.O.-Panchpota, P.S. – Sonarpur, Kolkata-700 152 plot of land in Rs.S. Dag No,87 is to the North of the scheduled plot of complainant with car parking space.  Plot of land in R.S. Dag No,113(P) is situated to the South of the scheduled plot.  16 feet-wide Municipal Road is situated to the East of the subject plot and plot of land in R.S. Dag no.112 is situated on the South of the scheduled plot.  Complainant bought the car parking space in the subject plot, where he bought a flat.  Complainant bought the car parking space with a valuable consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and fifty thousand) only from the Developer’s allocation.  The car parking space measured about 120 Sq. ft.  The said car parking space was purchased by virtue of the Deed of Conveyance duly executed by the OPs for which the complainant paid the amount of consideration.  As the complainant paid the entire consideration amount in respect of the subject car parking space, he is a consumer u/s 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  OPs did not turn up to contradict the aforementioned statement.  So the 1st point is settled in favour of complainant.    2.  The OPs (Developer) i.e. OPs 5 and 6, did not act following the rule.  Complainant paid the full amount of consideration on 06.06.2018.  He paid Rs.2,50,0000/- (Rupees two lakhs and fifty thousand) only, to the Developer, but complainant did not get his car parking space.  As complainant, resides in the said building, he was desirous to buy car parking space in the same building, for which, he fulfilled all the formalities, OPs were deficient in rendering proper service to complainant.  Complainant sold the car parking space situated to the West corner of the back side.  Accordingly, the deed of conveyance was executed on 06.06.2018.  Afterwards he was told that it was wrong, his car parking is situated at South-East-Front side.  As a result, a deed of conveyance was executed on 03.07.2019.  In fact, it was a common space used by the flat owners.  Complainant failed to submit any sanctioned plan demarcating the new car parking space.  In view of the above noted facts complainant was supposed to get back the price of the said car parking space through cancellation of the revised deed of conveyance. Complainant did not get the same.  The developer (OP No.6) must be penalized for such unfair trade practice.  The OP collected the money but complainant had to return with empty hand.   Neither the complainant received back the money, nor he was handed over the car parking space.  Hence, the 2nd point is settled in favour of complainant.   3.  OP No.6 sold the 2nd car parking space knowing fully well that the space was not sanctioned by Rajpur Sonarpur Municipality.  OP executed the revised Deed of Conveyance by suppressing the material fact, because they wanted to earn money at any cost.  The complainant paid the amount of consideration to get the car parking space.  Complainant failed to get the car parking space.  Complainant failed to get the revised sanctioned plan and completion certificate in respect of the said car parking space.  Complainant made valid payment, but failed to use the said car parking space.  It appears that the said car parking space was sold to other purchasers.  Hence complainant is entitled to get relief.  The 3rd point is settled in favour of complainant.       In the result, the complaint case succeeds.        Hence, it is,                                                                                                  ORDERED That the complaint case be and the same is hereby allowed exparte with cost of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) against the O.Ps. 5 and 6. That the O.Ps. jointly or severally are directed to regularize the said car parking space by obtaining completion certificate and revised plan in respect of the said car parking space and to hand over the same to the complainant.                                                                                                        Or That the OPs 5 and 6 jointly  or severally are directed to refund the entire consideration amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and fifty thousand) only with simple interest @10% p.a. w.e.f. 06.06.2018 in respect of the said car parking space to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order. That the OPs 5 and 6 jointly or severally are directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only to complainant within the stipulated period of 60 days and the cost of litigation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) is to be paid by the OPs 5 and 6 within the stipulated period of 60 days. That the complainant is at liberty to put the order into execution is the orders are not complied with within the stipulated period of 60 days.  Let a copy of the order be supplied free of cost to the parties concerned.                            That the Final order will be made available in www.confonet.nic.in .               Dictated and corrected by me                                                           Sangita Paul                                        Member

 

[ SHRI ASHOKE KUMAR PAL]

PRESIDENT

[ JAGADISH CHANDRA BARMAN]

MEMBER

[ SMT. SANGITA PAUL]

MEMBER

Development Agreement #agreement

petition # application #annexure # judicial magistrate