ASHOK KUMAR SINGH

Sunday, April 28, 2024

Negligence of State Bank of India Cost to compensate by Consumer Commission

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 Complaint Case No. CC/377/2014 ( Date of Filing : 05 Nov 2014 ) 1. Sujay Bakshi S/o Sri Gour Chandra Bakshi, 11, Harekrishna Kongar Lane, Kalipur, P.S. - Parnasree, Kolkata - 700 061. 2. Smt. Lila Bakshi W/o Sri Sujay Bakshi, 11, Harekrishna Kongar Lane, Kalipur, P.S. - Parnasree, Kolkata - 700 061. ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. State Bank of India Head office at 1, Strand Road, Block - B, Samridhi Bhavan, Kolkata - 700 001. 2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India Shibrampur Branch Janavilla, Vill. & P.O. - Joteshibrampur, Biren Roy Road West, Kolkata - 700 141. 3. The Branch Manager, United Bank of India Kolkata Branch, 4, Narendra Chandra Dutta Sarani, Kolkata - 700 001. 4. The Branch Manager, Dewan Housing Finance Ltd. Narendra Chandra Dutta Sarani, Kolkata - 700 071. ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. AJEYA MATILAL PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. SOMA BHATTACHARJEE MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 19 Apr 2024 Final Order / Judgement Hon’ble Mrs. Soma Bhattacharjee, Member CC/377/2014 has been filed by Sri Sujoy Bakshi and Smt. Lila Bakshi against i. State Bank of India, ii. Branch Manager, Statement of India, Shibrampur Branch, iii. The Branch Manager, United Bank of India (presently known as Punjab National Bank) Kolkata Branch, iv. Branch Manager Dewan Housing Finance Ltd. under Section 17 of C.P. Act, 1986. The gist of the case is that the petitioner No. 1 is a driver by occupation and petitioner no. 2 is his wife. The petitioner No. 1 is the only earning member of his family. On account of urgent financial need the petitioner sold their property of 2 cottah land with two storied building lying on mouza Jagannathpur, Pargana Balia, Touzi No. 1523, J.L. no. 27, R.S. no. 76, under R.S. Dag no. 95, in R.S. Khatian No. 62, L.R. (Kri) Khatian no. 500 & 501, Plaza Housing Society, being plot no. 199, having holding no. 3916, Plaza Housing, Jagannathpur, Mahestala, District South 24 Parganas, to 4/20/24, 3:15 AM Cause Title/Judgement-Entry https://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetPdfCaseStaus.do?method=GetPdfCaseStaus&cid=4/0/CC/377/2014&dtOfHearing=2024-04-19 2/4 one Sri Pappu Kumar Shaw, son of Sukhdeo Shaw, residing at premises being no. 22, Orphan Gang Road, Police Station Watgange, Kolkata – 700023. The purchaser obtained housing loan from M/s Dewan Housing Pvt. Ltd, following which respondent no. 4 issued cheque no. 000834 dt. 24.09.2014 for Rs. 20,00,000/- (Twenty Lakh) only drawn on United Bank of India, Kolkata Branch, at premises no. 4 Narendra Chandra Dutta Sarani Kolkata 700001 in favour of the petitioners towards the payment of the consideration money or value of the property. The petitioners jointly maintain one saving Bank Account with the State Bank of India, Shibrampur Branch Janavilla, Village & Post Office – Joteshibrampur, Biren Roy Road West, Kolkata – 700141, being saving Bank Account no. 30691667417. The petitioners deposited the said cheque being no. 000834, dt. 24.09.2014, for Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) only, drawn on United Bank of India, Kolkata Branch, at premises being no. 4, Narendra Chandra Dutta Sarani, Kolkata – 700001, for encashment of the cheque value. On 27 th day September, 2014, the banker of the petitioners being the respondent no. 2, herein credited Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) only, instead of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) only, on clearing of the said cheque being no. 000834, dated 24.09.2014, for Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) only, drawn on United Bank of India, Kolkata Branch, at premises being no. 4, Narendra Chandra Dutta Sarani, Kolkata – 700001. Your petitioners were extremely astonished to know such clearance of lower amount of money. On enquiring about the clearing of their cheque with their banker i.e. SBI Shibrampur Branch the petitioners got to know that due to mistake of officials of SBI who sit for clearing a wrong entry of Rs. 2,00,000/- (two lakh) instead of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Twenty lakh) had been made and the banker is trying to resolve such anomaly as early as possible and to credit the balance Rs. 18,00,000 (Eighteen Lakh) in the savings Bank account of the petitioners. Although the petitioners visited the branch of the respondent no. 2, SBI Shibrampur Branch on several occasions with a request to credit the balance amount of Rs. 18,00,000/- in their savings account, it was not done. On 31st day of October, 2014, the respondent no. 2, herein served to te complainant, one letter being reference no. BR17/156, dated 31.10.2014, captioned as Fate of Cheque No. 000834, dated 24.09.2014, stating inter alia as by mistake in CTS, amount was inserted as Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two lakh) against Cheque No. 000834, and the same was credited to the joint account of your petitioners, and given a copy of one another letter being reference no. BR17/151, dated 28.10.2014, addressed to the respondent no. 4, herein captioned as less payment Cheque no. 000834, dated 24.09.2014, by Rs. 18,00,000/- ( Rupees Eighteen Lakhs) only, presented on 26.09.2014, stating inter alia about mistake and requesting for balance payment thereof, with a xerox copy of said cheque and entry of the bank. However, when the complainants did not get any redress from SBI Shibrampur Branch, they were compelled to file CC/377/2014. Notices were duly served upon all OPs. 4/20/24, 3:15 AM Cause Title/Judgement-Entry https://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetPdfCaseStaus.do?method=GetPdfCaseStaus&cid=4/0/CC/377/2014&dtOfHearing=2024-04-19 3/4 OP nos. 1, 2 and 3 filed their W.V and evidence on affidavit but OP no. 4 did not file any evidence. The evidences submitted by the complainant is similar to his complaint petition while the evidences filed by OP nos. 1,2 and 3 are replica of their W.V. OP no. 4 did not participate in replying to questionnaire of the complainant. Heard the argument of the Ld. Counsels of the complainants, OP nos. 1, 2 & 3. On considering the written documents furnished by OP nos. 1, 2 and 3 it appears that vide letter dt. 28.10.2014 to Dewan Housing, SBI Shibrampur branch has admitted the lapse on their part. In his argument the Ld. Advocate for the complainant has cited the following judgments: In (1991) 1 CPJ 362 (State Bank of Hyderabad v. Shri Bairi Lingam ), it has been held that there may be deficiency in banking services to be rendered by the bank owing to its fault in the due performance of promise to finance. In Filmalaya Pvt. Ltd. v. Corporation Bank, reported in (1992) 1 CPJ 117, negligence on the part of an employee of the bank was held to be a case falling within the purview of the said Act. In the said decision it was further held that the bank is liable to make good the loss resulted from its deficiency in service. In Bank of India v. H.C.L. Ltd. reported in (1993) 3 CPR 30, non- furnishing of payment as against bank guarantee was held to give rise to a cause of action for filing a complaint under the said Act. It was held that a person in whose favour bank guarantee is furnished is also a beneficiary thereof although no privity of contract exists between the bank and such person.” The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that SBI Shibrampur Branch has been totally negligent and has resorted to unfair trade practice by crediting only Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two lakh) to the account of the petitioners when the actual value of cheque no 000834, dt. 24.09.2014, for Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) only, drawn on United Bank of India, Kolkata Branch. Petitioners had been compelled to sell their dwelling house as they were in dire need of money. Under such circumstances they have undergone severe pecuniary loss and mental harassment. The petitioners have prayed for payment of the balance of Rs. 18,00,000/-, Rs. 10,00,000/- towards pecuniary damages and Rs. 10,00,000/- for mental harassment and also litigation cost. The defense case of the OP no. 2 SBI Shibrampur is that they had made a bonafide mistake in inserting an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- instead of Rs. 20,00,000/- for purpose of CTS clearing as per RBI guidelines. However, they had tried to sort out the matter as early as possible by writing letters and emails to UBI and also the complainants and they credited the balance amount of Rs.18,00,000/- on 09.02.2015 to the Savings Bank joint account no. 30691667417 of the petitioners in SBI Shibrampur. The defense of OP no. 3 is that the complainants are not consumers in respect of UBI since they do not maintain any account with them. Hence there is no question of deficiency of service on their part vis a vis the complainants. The defense of OP no. 4 being that since the entire Rs. 20,00,000/- has been debited from their account they have no liability towards the complainants. Heard and considered the submission of the Ld. Counsels of all parties. Considered the documents annexed. On appraisal of all W.Vs, evidences, and notes of argument and in terms of the position of law cited, it appears that both SBI Shibrampur branch and UBI are deficient and negligent in 4/20/24, 3:15 AM Cause Title/Judgement-Entry https://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetPdfCaseStaus.do?method=GetPdfCaseStaus&cid=4/0/CC/377/2014&dtOfHearing=2024-04-19 4/4 providing service to the petitioners in terms of C.P. Act, 1986. The complainants were in financial crisis for which they had sold their house. On being paid only Rs. 2,00,000/- against total amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- the complainants have faced both pecuniary harassment and mental agony. The balance Rs. 18,00,000/- was credited to their bank account on 09.02.2015 although they had deposited the cheque with their account on 27.09..2014. Although SBI Shibrampur had wrongly mentioned Rs. 2,00,000/- instead of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Twenty Lakhs) when they sent the cheque for clearing to UBI, Kolkata Branch, UBI Kolkata Branch was also negligent, since a scanned copy of the cheque was available with them along with the clearing documents. UBI Kolkata Branch could have verified the amount that required to be cleared in favour of the payee. Hence it is ordered The CC/377/2014 is allowed on contest. The OP no. 2 is directed to pay to the complainants a simple interest @ 12% p.a. on Rs. 18,00,000/- for the period 27.09.2014 to 08.02.2015. OP no. 2 is to pay to the complainants a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for pecuniary and mental harassment. OP no. 2 is directed to pay to the complainant a litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-. OP no. 3 is directed to pay to the complainants a simple interest @ 12% p.a. on Rs. 18,00,000/- for the period 27.09.2014 to 08.02.2015. OP no. 3 is to pay to the complainants a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for pecuniary and mental harassment. OP no. 3 is directed to pay to the complainant a litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-. OP nos. 2 and 3 are directed to comply the above mentioned directions within a period of 60 days from the pronouncement of this order. If the OPs fail to comply with this order within the stipulated period, the complainants are at liberty to put the order into execution. CC/377/2014 is disposed of accordingly. [HON'BLE MR. AJEYA MATILAL] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. SOMA BHATTACHARJEE] MEMBER

Compensation of Rupees Two Lakhs imposed by Consumer Commission on State Bank of India

Consumer Court asks negligent State Bank of India to Pay Compensation to its Account Holders

Friday, March 22, 2024

Brief Notes of Argument in Consumer Case

BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLKATA UNIT-II

8-B, NELLIE SENGUPTA SARANI, 7TH FLOOR,

KOLKATA-700087.

Consumer Complaint no. CC/45/2022.

In the matter of :

Mrs. Piya Sengupta, & Anr.

______Petitioners

- Versus –

M/s. Riverbank Developers Private Limited, & Anr.

________Opposite Parties

Brief Notes of Argument

On behalf of

The Petitioners

Facts Surfaced by the Petitioners;

1. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant was supplied with an application form having Serial No. 242831, at cost of Rs. 200/- ( Rupees Two Hundred ) only, requiring them to fill it up and to submit the same giving full particular and details of the intending purchaser having prescribed GENERAL TERMS & CONDITIONS. He was told that option for availing car parking space must be taken at the time of submitting allotment application and the price for the Flat and Car Parking space shall be fixed according to the option taken by them. The Complainants was asked to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- ( Rupees Fifty Thousand ) only, for application money or allotment money, which the complainants applied jointly and consequently paid such sum of Rs. 50,000/- ( Rupees Fifty Thousand ) only, in favour of Riverbank Developers Private Limited, towards application money and the same was paid by them at the time of submitting the said application for allocation of allotment.

2. The Complainants were allotted Apartment No. 12A1 on the 12^th Floor, Tower No. 14, at Hiland Greens by electronic draw. Complainants were informed that the consideration price of the flat with open car parking shall be Rs. 23,70,000/- ( Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs and Seventy Thousand ) only, and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- ( Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only, has to be paid for Maintenance Corpus Deposit which has to be paid by several installments as per Payment Schedule mention in the General Terms and Conditions ( GTC ). After allotment of the flat the Complainants was asked to pay allotment money as of Rs. 2,86,460/- ( Rupees Two Lakhs and Eighty Six Thousand and Four Hundred Sixty ) only, and the Complainants were informed that the “Application Money of Rs. 50,000/- ( Rupees Fifty Thousand ) only, already paid by them shall form a part of the allotment money as specified in the Payment Schedule.

3. By aforesaid representation the Complainants were made to understand that they have to pay a sum of Rs. 23,70,000/- ( Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs and Seventy Thousand ) only, As consideration for the Flat and Car parking space allotted to them including Rs. 25,000/- ( Rupees Twenty Five Thousand ) only, for Maintenance Corpus Deposit and no other money. Therefore the total sum being consideration as of Rs. 23,70,000/- ( Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs and Seventy Thousand ) only. As per demand made in the payment schedule provided, the Complainants paid a sum of Rs. 23,42,761/- ( Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs and Forty Two Thousand and Seven Hundred Sixty One ) only, and further sum of Rs. 5,000/- ( Rupees Five Thousand ) only towards being charges for open car parking to covered car parking.

4. The Complainants made payments to the Opposite Parties for allotted Apartment No. 12A1 on the 12^th Floor, Tower No. 14, at Hiland Greens, with covered car parking in the following :

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars	Amount
01	03-11-2014	MR-01369/2014	50,000/-
02	09-01-2015	MR-REC-0002/01927/14-15	2,86,461/-
03	17-01-2015	REC0002/02018/14-15	40,000/-
04	30-03-2015	REC0002/03166/14-15	3,91,947/-
05	05-05-2015	REC0002/03645/15-16	1,80,000/-
06	22-05-2015	REC0002/03917/15-16	1,77,723/-
07	03-11-2015	REC0002/05495/15-16	1,10,536/-
08	19-04-2016	REC0002/08805/16-17	2,30,382/-
09	24-08-2016	REC0002/11482/16-17	2,18,928/-
10	23-09-2016	REC0002/12241/16-17	2,18,928/-
11	15-11-2016	REC0002/12994/16-17	2,18,928/-
12	17-01-2017	REC0002/13834/16-17	2,18,928/-
13	21-08-2017	For open car parking to covered car parking	5,000/-
14		TOTAL	23,47,761/-

( Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs and Forty Seven Thousand and Seven Hundred Sixty One ) only.

5. The Complainants paid Rs. 23,47,761/- ( Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs and Forty Seven Thousand and Seven Hundred Sixty One ) only, as per Demand raised by the opposite parties and whereas a substantial period of 42 months has been expired though the respondents did not deliver the physical possession of the flat and consequently did not execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Complainants.

6. It is pertinent to states that the despite the period of 42 months for delivery of possession of the allotted flat has expired, the O.P. company failed to delivered the possession of the flat & car parking and or to register the Deed of Conveyance and or to withdraw the allotment although the Complainants on several occasion opted for the option specifically mentioned in the General terms and conditions ( GTC ).

7. Persistently from the facts and circumstances depicted hereinabove it appears that the respondent company is involved in restrictive trade practices by bringing about manipulation of price and by deviating from terms and conditions for delivery of flat and car parking space as mentioned in the general terms and conditions ( GTC ), and it has been done in such a manner as to impose unjustified cost and restriction upon the complainants. The respondent company has also adopted unfair means of trade practices for the purpose of promoting the sale, use and delivery of possession of the flat and car parking spaces by making false and misleading representation concerning the need for or the usefulness of the services to be rendered by the respondent company.

8. The Complainants seek to get Physical possession & Registration of apartment no. 12A1, on the 12^th Floor, HG2 – Tower – 14, at Hiland Greens Phase II with covered car parking.

9. Finding no other alternative recourse the complainants were constrained to issue a notice dated 2^nd day of December’ 2021, through his Learned Advocate Ashok Kumar Singh, upon the opposite parties demanding Physical possession & Registration of apartment no. 12A1, on the 12^th Floor, HG2 – Tower – 14, at Hiland Greens Phase II with covered car parking. The said notice was dispatched and sent through Speed Post at the respective address of the opposite parties. Despite receipt of the said notice the opposite parties failed and neglected to redress the grievances of the complainants. Hence the instant consumer complainants resort before the Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata Unit - II.

10. The Complainants relied on the following Documents;

(a) Copy of Letter of allotment dated 08-12-2014, Schedule of Cost and Charges & Payment Schedule, Tax Invoice;

(b) General Terms and Conditions (GTC);

(d) Email Communication by the Respondents, on April 3, 2019;

(e) Email Communication by the Respondents, on 15^th July, 2020;

(f) Legal Notice by the Complainants, dated 2^nd day of December’ 2021, with postal receipts & postal track reports;

Facts Surfaced by the Opposite Parties;

11. The Opposite Parties appeared in the above referred Consumer Case, on receipt of notice given by the Hon’ble DCDRC Kolkata Unit – II. The Opposite Parties submitted their Written Version in the Consumer Case stating inter alia that the instant application is strictly barred by limitation. As per Section 69(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, therefore the Hon’ble Commission cannot admit a complaint that has been filed after the expiry of two years from the date of cause of action. Thus in the instant case, even if it is assumed without admitting the same that the cause of action arose on November 3, 2014, as alleged in para 23 of the complaint, two years from the alleged date of cause of action would end in November 3, 2016, but the instant Complaint has been filed much later in 2022.

12. That it is especially relevant to highlight that in the instant case, the Complainants had committed a delay of 62 (sixty two) days in payment of the first installment, 13 (thirteen) days in payment of the second installment, 10 (ten) days in payment of the third installment, 2 (two) days in payment of the fourth installment, 3 (three) days in payment of the sixth installment, 5 (five) days in payment of the seventh installment, and other minor delays. Therefore, the Complainants had made a total delay of 98 (ninety eight) days in making payment of installments. Owing to such delay, a total interest of Rs. 15,439/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty Nine Only) has accrued under Clause 11 of the GTC, and consequently, a payment of Rs. 13,287/- (Rupees Thirteen Thousand Two Hundred and Eight Seven Only) has been made towards such interest.

13. The Opposite Parties stated about the circumstances during the period of COVID-19, and the provisions related to the force majeure, etc.

14. The Opposite Parties relied on the following Documents;

(a) Form “B’ of WBHIRA;

(b) Order dated 29/05/2020, by WBHIRA;

(d) Email Communication dated June 26, 2021, regarding force majeure;

(e) Interest ledger;

(f) Letter dated 23/09/2020, without any postal receipt and postal track report;

Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners;

15. The fact of the Complainants has not been challenged by the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties did not deny the facts given by the Complainants. The Opposite Parties did not deny the receipt of the payment made by the Complainants. The Opposite Parties are silent on the Legal Notice served on them by the Complainants.

16. The Opposite Parties raised their contentions about the Cause of action stated in the contents of the paragraph number 23 of the petition of Consumer Complaint of the Complainants. Pertinently, the Cause of Action arose at First threshold, on 03-11-2014, while the Complainants made their payments towards application money for allotment as of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousands) only. By Letter dated 08-12-2014, the opposite parties confirmed the allotment for the complainants, providing the GTC, Tax Invoice, Schedule of payments, etc. Thus thereafter, in compliance of the Payment Schedule, the Complainants made their payments to the Opposite Parties, and thereby the last payment has been made only on 21-08-2017. The GTC, states about the delivery of possession within a period of 42 (Forty Two) months from the date of allotment of the apartment, in Clause 11(a), therefore the said 42 (forty two) months from the date of allotment dated 08-12-2014, would be come as 08-06-2018 (8^th day of June’ 2018), and by an email communication dated April 3, 2019, the opposite parties communicated to the Complainants placing their sincere apologies for not being able to start construction of Hiland Greens as was committed by them. The opposite parties appreciate that the complainants are distressed by the inordinate delay in the handover of their apartments. Thereafter in the month of March’ 2020, unprecedented pandemic COVID-19 spread out in the Country, which took much enlarged period in normalizing and the post COVID-19 situation started normalization probably since the month of March’ 2021. Thereafter the Complainants send their Legal Notice asking for delivery of possession of their allotted apartment, by way of their Advocate’s Letter dated 2^nd day of December’ 2021, which the Opposite Parties were in receipt as appeared from the Postal Track Report; But did not even answer the said Legal notice of the complainants. Persistently the Cause of Action meaning thereby a Bundle of facts, and the accrual of cause of action standing as the compelling circumstances in which the Petitioners come before the Hon’ble DCDRC Kolkata Unit – II, resorting themselves for their reliefs, so far. The given facts clearly shows the case in hand have the continuing cause of action till the delivery of the allotted apartment to the complainant. Therefore the contention about the cause of action by the opposite parties are not acceptable well in the prescribed provisions of Law as enumerated under Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act’ 2019. The contention is that not only the cause of action is continuing but is also alive.

17. Regarding the delayed payment and accrual of interest no communication has ever been given by the opposite parties to the complainant by email on any occasion, whatsoever. The Letter dated 23/09/2020, has never been served on the Complainants, which has been cited by the opposite parties. The said letter has not been followed by any postal receipt and track report, so far, being the materials to show that the said letter has been ever served on the complainants, therefore presumably, the said letter dated 23/09/2020, is a manufactured document in the line of defense of the opposite parties. However in the contents of delayed payment and interest thereon it has been stated by the Opposite Parties that a total interest of Rs. 15,439/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty Nine Only) has accrued under Clause 11 of the GTC, and consequently, a payment of Rs. 13,287/- (Rupees Thirteen Thousand Two Hundred and Eight Seven Only) has been made towards such interest, therefore a sum of Rs. 2,152/- is lying due on such purported account of interest.

18. The Opposite Parties stated about the circumstances during the period of COVID-19, and the provisions related to the force majeure, etc. which is not applicable in the case in hand as By Letter dated 08-12-2014, the opposite parties confirmed the allotment for the complainants, providing the GTC, Tax Invoice, Schedule of payments, etc. Thus thereafter, in compliance of the Payment Schedule, the Complainants made their payments to the Opposite Parties, and thereby the last payment has been made only on 21-08-2017. The GTC, states about the delivery of possession within a period of 42 (Forty Two) months from the date of allotment of the apartment, in Clause 11(a), therefore the said 42 (forty two) months from the date of allotment dated 08-12-2014, would be come as 08-06-2018 (8^th day of June’ 2018), and by an email communication dated April 3, 2019, the opposite parties communicated to the Complainants placing their sincere apologies for not being able to start construction of Hiland Greens as was committed by them. The opposite parties appreciate that the complainants are distressed by the inordinate delay in the handover of their apartments.

Conclusion;

The Petitioners are entitled to get relief in terms of their prayer made in the petition of Consumer Complaint.

Judicial Precedent Cited;

Shashwato Chakraborty – Versus – Riverbank Developers Private Limited and Others. Complaint Case No. CC/186/2018, decided on 17^th August’ 2023, by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal.

============================XXXX========================