DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C.C. No.281/2018
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
11.07.2018 16.07.2018 13.04.2023
Complainant/s:- | 1.Nirupam Das, S/o. Ashok Ranjan Das. 2.Sipra Das Ghosh, W/o. Nirupam Das, United Tower, Flat No.4D, 4th Floor, 10/6, East Mall Road, Kolkata-700080, P.S. Dum Dum. = Vs |
Opposite Party/s: | 1.The Director, Nest Wood Estate Pvt. Ltd, 306, 3rd floor, PS-IXL-Block-A, Salt Lake City, Atghara, New Town, Kolkata-136 Dist- North 24 Parganas. 2. Kaushik Das, Director of C-21, Advisory Service Pvt. Ltd, Corporate Office-32-S, Block-‘B’, P.S. New Alipore , Kolkata-53 And Director of Skywood Developers Pvt. Ltd. Office at 2/1, Siddinath Chatterjee Road, Ground floor, menton Behala, Kolkata-700034, P.S. Behala, Residing at – Amtola Housing Complex, Amtola N.D. Road, P.O. Kanyanagar, P.s. Bishnupur, South 24 Parganas, Pin-743398. |
P R E S E N T :- Smt. Sukla Sengupta…………………President
:- Smt. Monisha Shaw ……………… Member.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu …………… ... Member.
JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER
The complainant filed this case U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 read with Section 13 and 14 of Consumer Protection Act.
The fact of the case is as under:-
One agreement was made between the parties on 23.06.2014 for purchase a flat in the project (named Nest Wood Maple) of O.P. Members measuring about 898 Sq.ft for a consideration of money Rs. 18,82,245/- being Appartment No. F2 in Tower No. T-21, North –West facing. The opposite parties made the said Nestwood Maple Project at Nestwood City, Salt Lake, lying and situated at Mouza-Oyari, P.S. Bhangore, R.S. Khatian No. 360/1, 339, 994, 309, 830, 828, 628, 995, 557, 579, 35, 953, R.S. Dag Nos. 385,109, 111, 113, 367, 380, 379/985, 386, 110, 107, 389,117, 387, within the limit of Benota-II Grampanchayet, Dist- North 24 Parganas.
Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./
: : 2 : :
C.C. No.281/2018
The complainant paid Rs. 4,00,000/- as advance money for purchase the said flat by cheques on several dates. It was agreed by he opposite parties that the flat shall be handed over the complainant by maintaining all formalities within 23.06.2014. But the opposite parties had not started their project named Nest Wood maple. The O.Ps would like to introduce another housing project named Gulmahar developed by BACM Project Pvt. Ltd. But the complainant is not interested in another project Gulmahar. Thereafter O.Ps agreed to refuse the entire amount and issued a cheque of Rs. 50,000/- as refund money on 08.04.2017 but due to insufficient balance the cheque was not cash. Then the O.Ps transferred Rs. 50,000/- towards the Account of complainants. Thereafter O.Ps were silent. Compelling circumstance, complainants send legal notice to opposite parties. In reply of said notice O.Ps stated that they would refund Rs. 1,24,605/- instead of Rs. 3,50,000/- after deduction of Rs. 2,25,395/- as applicable tax. Here, O.P. did not provide their service as promised, therefore, there is no question for deduction any amount. There is deficiency of service on the part of O.P. members.
Compelling circumstances the complainants filed this case.
Issue framed for the purpose of Decision
- Whether the case is maintainable or not?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or reliefs in this case or not?
Reason for Judgment
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as nature and character of this case all the points are interlinked to each other and as such all the points are taken up together for consideration. The territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction of this case is under this jurisdiction. Hence this commission has ample power to try this case.
On perusal of the materials on record available in the case record, documents filed by the complainants as well as hearing of argument by the complainants it is revealed that complainants paid Rs. 4,00,000/- as advance amount for purchase a flat in the project of Nestwood Maple and made an agreement by both the parties. The opposite parties offered the complainants to take flat in other project named Gulmahar which was developed by BACM Project Pvt. Ltd. The complainants were not interested to another project. It is the choice of the complainants whether they would choice another project or not. The opposite parties did not start the project till the filing of this case, which is deficiency of service of negligence on the part of the opposite parties.
Contd. To Page No. 3 . . . ./
: : 3 : :
C.C. No.281/2018
The O.Ps refund Rs. 50,000/- but they want to deduct Rs. 2,75,395/- from the advanced amount as applicable taxes which is not according to law. The opposite parties could not provide the flat within stipulated period even they did not start the project. Therefore, the opposite parties are liable for deficiency of service in their part. Therefore, the opposite parties are liable to refund the entire balance amount to the complainant. Here complainants are consumer and opposite parties are service provider but the opposite parties failed and neglected to provide their service according to Consumer Protection Act. Here, O.P. members did not provide their service as per their promise and there is deficiency of service on the part of O.P members. Hence, there is no question for deduction of money in any circumstances.
All the points are considered.
Hence,
it is ordered,
that the case being No. 281/2018 be and the same is heard exparte and opposite parties did not take any steps at the time of argument or earlier in spite of received notice issued by this commission.
It is hereby directed the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- to the complainants with interest of 6% from the date of receiving the advance amount till recovery within two months from the date of this judgment. Failing which the complainants have liberty to file execution case as per law.
Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.
Dictated & Corrected by me
Member
Member Member President
