J U D G E M E N T

This is an application u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 where the complainant Dilip Kr. Pal has filed a case against the O.P. Dharamraj Rajbhar with a prayer of Rupees twelve lakhs by holding him liable for its conduct of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and Rupees one lakh for mental pain, agony and harassment and fifty thousand for litigation cost.

The fact of the case is that the complainant has purchased the land measuring 3 kottha for a consideration amount of Rs.2, 75,000=00 per kottha in the year of 2014 from O.P. within district Burdwan, Sub-Divison- Durgapur at Mouza- Dubchururia, JL No.55 Kaithan No. 1835, RS Plot No.113 and LR No.Plot No.221 Class Baid under Andal Gram Panchayat.

As per oral agreement one deed of agreement for sale was executed on 20.10.2014 between the complainant and the O.P. where it was stated that the total consideration amount for 3 kottha of land was Rs. 8,25,000=00 and the complainant paid Rs.50,000=00 to the O.P. on 31/10/2014 and the rest of the amount that is Rs.7,75,000=00 will have to pay on the date of registration of the property, when O.P. also duty bound to provide some facilities that is Moram Road of 20 feet main gate, fencing boundary wall, proper community space, electric connection, one temple, security services for 24 hours within three years from the date of execution of the deed dated 20.10.2014 i.e., within 19.10.2017.

After the execution of agreement for sale, the O.P. registered the deed of sale in favor of the complainant on 19.12.2014 and the complainant also paid the total consideration amount to the O.P. and the number of that sale deed that is 6461 of 2014 applied before the BL & LRO for mutating his name and the said authority also mutated the name of the complainant in respect of the above mentioned property but after that the opposite party neither develop the sale property nor have taken any step regarding this and in spite of receiving several request from the complainant O.P. kept himself mum for a long period. Being frustrated with the conducts of the O.P. the complainant requested the O.P. for refunding his money and take over the property from him.

After that on request O.P. agreed to refund the total consideration amount along with interest and other cost that is Rs.12, 00,000=00 to the complainant and as such O.P. issued two cheques bearing No.918716 dated 28.04.2017 and 918717 dated 03.05.2017 amounting Rs. Six lakhs each in the name of the complainant but those two cheques were returned by the Bank authority by showing the reason as ‘insufficient funds’ on 29.04.2017 and 04.05.2017.

After repeated request to the O.P. for refunding his amount, the complainant lastly on 12.12.2017 send a letter to the O.P. under speed post but in this time also he did not give any response and as such the complainant compelled to lodge the complaint before the Consumers Affairs Department and lastly filed this instant case.

complainant is a bona fide consumer of the opposite party and never done any act of detrimental to the interest of the opposite party but the opposite party neither complete the required works as per agreement nor took any step towards the same and the O.P. though refund the amount vide cheques but those cheques were bounce for insufficient funds.

After filing the case the complainant has sent the summons to O.P. through Post Office and from the track report filed by the complainant it goes to show that the O.P has received the summon but did not appear and contest the case. So the case run ex parte against him.

Now points for consideration:-

Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons:

To prove the allegation against the OP, the complainant is duty bound to show that he is a bonafide consumer under the OP and to prove the same the complainant has filed the Xerox copy of deed of agreement as well as Xerox copy of sale deed.

The complainant is also bound to prove that there is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice has done by the OP upon him for which he has compelled to file the present claim application before this Forum court without taking any steps either before any Civil Court or before Criminal Court and accordingly the complainant filed his evidence in chief through affidavit where he stated that after purchasing the deed of sale from OP with full consideration, definitely proved that he became a bonafide consumer under the OP as per provision of C. P. Act, 1986.

According to documents it appears that deed of agreement for sale was executed between the complainant and the OP on 20.10.2014 when total consideration amount was fixed for Rs. 8, 25,000=00 for 3 cotta of land and as such complainant paid Rs. 50,000=00 to the OP on 31.10.2014 and the rest amount of RS. 7, 75,000=00 paid when deed of sale registered as per terms and conditions.

Now next point for consideration that is whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice actually done by the OP upon the complainant after registered the sale deed and at the time of consider this point it appears that the complainant has stated in his written complaint as well as his evidence through affidavit that according to agreement the OP failed to provide the facilities within three years from the date of registration, i.e., to construct morum road of 20 feet, fencing boundary well, main gate, proper community space, electric connection, one temple and security services for 24 hours.

Now it further appears that according to claim application, it was settled between the parties that the complainant should pay total amount of the property to the OP on the date of registration and the OP also take steps to give all facilities to the complainant according to agreement and here it is clear that as the OP failed to comply the said provision and for that the complainant lodged the  present application showing that the attitude and behaviour of the OP shows that he has done deficiency in service and unfair trade practice towards the complainant.

The complainant also stated in the claim application that on request OP agreed to refund the total consideration amount i.e. Rs. 12, 00,000=00 to the complainant and complainant also able to produce two cheques 918716 dated 28.04.2017 and 918717 dated 03.05.2017 of Rs. 6, 00,000=00 each in favour of the complainant and both the said cheques were returned by the Bank authority with endorsement “insufficient funds” on 29.04.2017 & 04.05.2017. From the claim application as well as evidence of the complainant it further appears that the OP also issued two cheques of Rs. 6,00,000=00 each in favour of the complainant, so from such behavior of the OP, compelled to belief that he is ready and willing to return the said amount of Rs. 12,00,000=00 as he failed to fulfill the terms and conditions of the agreement by constructed moram road, main gate, fencing boundary wall as well as others within fixed period and at the same time it is also proved that the intention of OP was not so good, for which both the cheques were returned with remark “insufficient funds” and such behavior of the OP obviously shows that there was unfair trade practice done by the OP upon the complainant.

Under such circumstances, there is no doubt that the intention of the OP was not so good towards the complainant at the time of selling landed property measuring 3 cottas in favour of the complainant and from the very beginning it appears that the OP intentionally created mal-practice upon the complainant which shows that he has also done deficiency in service.

So it is clear that the complainant is able to prove that at the time of purchasing landed property, the OP intentionally created deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.

Accordingly complainant is able to prove the allegation against the OP by evidence as well as documents and as such OP is found guilty.

Hence, it is

O r d e r e d

that the present Consumer Complaint being No. 91/2018 be and the same is allowed ex parte against the Opposite Party with a direction that the Opposite Party should provide all facilities at the questioned plot in favour of the Complainant as per terms and conditions of the agreement dated 20.10.2014 within three (3) months from the date of passing of this award,

or

the Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs. 8, 25,000=00 (Rs Eight lacs and twenty five thousand) only to the Complainant along with interest @9% (nine per cent) per annum from the date of Deed of Sale dated 19.12.2014 till its realization and also directed to pay the balance amount Rs. 3, 75,000=00 (Rs. Three lacs and seventy five thousand) only (Rs. 12, 00,000 – Rs. 8,25,000) to the Complainant within three (3) months from the date of passing of this order and the Complainant is directed to retransfer the land in question to the Opposite Party on the date of payment of full awarded amount.

The Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs. 5,000=00 (Rs. Five thousand) only as compensation for harassment, mental pain and agony and Rs. 2,000=00 (Rs. Two thousand) only as litigation cost to the Complainant within 3 (three) months from the date of this order, failing which, the Complainant is at liberty to put the award in execution as per provisions of law.

Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.

Dictated & Corrected by me                                                          (Jayanti Maitra (Ray)

                                                                                                                        President

              (Nivedita Ghosh)                                                             DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman

         Member

       DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman

                                                                           (Nivedita Ghosh)

                                                                                  Member

                                                                    DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman