PRESENT : Shri HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY PRESIDENT
: SHRI NIROD BARAN ROY CHOWDHURY MEMBER
Case No. CC/121/2022
COMPLAINANT : 1.Atanu Chanda, S/o-Ashim Chanda,
Of Ghurni Pyadapara, P.O. Ghurni, P.S. Kotwali,
Dist. Nadia, W.B., Pin-741103.
V-E-R-S-U-S
OPPOSITE PARTIES / 1. Vicky Singh, S/O-Late Ranjit Singh,
Director of Dharitri Infraventure Pvt. Ltd.,
Of 5/H/1, Bagmari Road, P.S.Maniktala, Kolkata,
West Bengal, Pin-700054.
2. Director, Dharitri Infraventure Pvt. Ltd.
Of DN-51, Merlin Infinite, Suite-606,
6th Floor, Sector-V, Salt Lake City,
Kolkata, West Bengal, Pin-700091.
3. Suman Jana, S/O-Tapan Kumar Jana,
Director of Dharitri Infraventure Pvt. Ltd.
Of Rupnarayan Pally, Vill. Barbarisha,
P.O. & P.S. Kolkata, Dist. East Medinipur,
Pin-721134, W.B.
4. Dipanwita Samanta, W/O-Suman Jana,
Director of Dharitri Infraventure Pvt. Ltd.
Of Vill.- Kouchandi, P.O. Amalhanda,
P.S. Kolaghat, Dist. East Medinipur,
Pin-721134, W.B.
5. Shankari Naskar, W/O-Basudev Naskar
6. Panchami Naskar @ Panchami Bala Naskar,
W/O-Kantiram Naskar
7. Barnali Mondal, W/O-Rajkumar Mondal
All of Vill. Kada, P.O. Akandakeshri,
P.S. Rajarhat, Dist. North 24 Parganas,
West Bengal, Pin-700135.
Ld. Advocate(s)
For Complainant: Subhasis Ray
For OP/OPs : None
Date of filing of the case :16.12.2022
Date of Disposal of the case :16.01.2024
Final Order / Judgment dtd.16.01.2024
The basic fact of the case of the complainant is that the complainant Atanu Chanda wanted to purchase one BHK flat from the OP No.1-4 who are
(2)
CC/121/2022
Director and Developer and deal with business of Real Estate Development. OP No.5-7 are the land Owner who entered into one development agreement with M/S Director, Dharitri Infraventure Pvt. Ltd. under the project name of “Royal Enclave”. On 25.07.2015 the complainant deposited Rs.200/- as application fee and paid one cheque for Rs.50,000/-. Accordingly, one 350 sq. ft. flat was allotted to the complainant in Royal Enclave situated within RS Plot No.1288 appertaining to RS Khatian No.652 in number 9 Hanskhali Mouza, District South 24 Parganas for a total consideration money of Rs.7,50,000/-. Subsequently, the complainant further paid Rs.50,000/- to the OPs on 16.09.2015 through cheque against which OP No.2 Director of Dharitri Infraventure Pvt. Ltd. issued one money receipt to the complainant on 16.09.2015. Subsequently, the complainant further paid Rs.50,000/- on 04.02.2016, Rs.7,50,000/- on 02.05.2016 and issued one agreement for sale. The complainant again paid of Rs.500/- to the OPs on 02.05.2016 as MOU and handed over MOU dated 16.02.2016. The OPs admitted that they had received Rs.1,50,000/- from the complainant as advance which they admitted the MOU and agreed to deliver the said flat within 42 months from the date of execution of the MOU. On 24.09.2019 the complainant received one allotment letter from the OP No.2 in tower no.6, 2nd Floor, Flat 2F stating inter-alia that the previous MOU and agreement etc. shall stand canceled. On enquiry complainant came to know that the OPs sold out the said flat to someone else and immediately they executed another agreement for sale on 29.09.2021 wherein they agreed to sale another one BHK flat as per the allotment letter dated 04.02.2021. Despite fulfilling all the terms and conditions OPs have no yet delivered possession of the said flat to the complainant. Subsequently the OPs informed the complainant that they have no ready flat to sale but they are ready to refund the advance money. After 7 years the OPs now giving pressure to the complainant to take back the advance money. So the case is filed. The cause of action for the present case arose on 25.07.2015 and on subsequent dates. The complainant, therefore, prayed for an award against the OPs directing them to give one BHK flat as per the allotment letter by accepting the rest consideration money of Rs.6,00,000/- in default the entire amount of Rs.1,58,200/- should be refunded to the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a, Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for mental pain and agony and harassment of Rs.50,000/- towards litigation cost.
The O.P. No.1-3 and OP No.5-7 did not appear and contest the case. Against OP No.4 News Paper Publication was made and as per order no.12 dated 21.06.2023 the case was decided heard ex-parte against the OP No.4. Thus as per order no.9 dated 16.03.2023 in order no.13 dated 14.07.2023 case was decided to be heard ex-parte against OP No.1-7.
(3)
CC/121/2022
The complainant in order to substantiate the case adduced both the oral evidence in the form of affidavit in chief and documentary evidence by means of filing the original documents.
The complainant Atanu Chanda categorically stated in his evidence that he advanced a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the opposite parties for purchasing the disputed flat but even after expiry of about 7 years giving pressure upon the complainant to take back the advance money instead of giving possession of the said flat.
The complainant proved the money receipt against payment of Rs.1,00,000/- on 16.09.2015, Rs.50,000/- on 04.02.2016, Rs.7500/- on 02.05.2016 and Rs.500/- on 02.05.2016. The complainant further proved one money receipt copy of bank deposit for Rs. 1,000/- dated 25.07, Rs.1,00,000/- on 16.09.2015. One allotment letter for one BHK flat in Real Enclave dated 24.09.2019 issued by Dharitri Infraventure Pvt. Ltd stands also proved by the complainant. The complainant further proved the allotment letter issued by the OPs dated 04.02.2021. The original notarial certificate regarding agreement for sale between the complainant and the OPs stands proved by the complainant. The complainant further proved the Memorandum Of Understanding between the parties notarised on 16.02.2016.
All the documents stand undiscarded and uncontroverted in as much as the OPs did not adduce any evidence. The entire evidence of the complainant in support of the case stand unchallenged because the OPs preferred not to contest the case.
Thus having assessed the entire unchallenged and unconverted oral and documentary evidence of the complainant, the commission comes to the finding that the complainant successfully proved the case against the OPs. So, there is no impediment to allow the prayer of the complainant as per the complaint.
In the result the complaint case succeeds ex-parte against all the OPs with cost.
Hence,
It is
Ordered
that the complaint case no.CC/121/2022 be and the same is allowed ex-parte against OP NO.1-7 with cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand). The complainant Arindam Chanda do get an award against the OP No.1-7 for delivery of one BHK flat measuring 350 sq.ft. (including
(4)
CC/121/2022
super build area) as per the allotment letter issued by the OPs by accepting the rest amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakh) failing which the O.P. No.1-7 shall return the entire amount of Rs.1,58,200/- to the complainant with interest @12% p.a from the date of the payment made by the complainant till the final payment by the OPs to the complainant as per this award. The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) for mental pain and agony and harassment to the complainant and Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) towards litigation cost within 30 days failing which the entire award money shall carry an interest @ 12% p.a from the date of passing the award till the date of its realisation.
All Interim Applications (I.A) stand disposed of accordingly.
D.A to note in the trial register.
The case is accordingly disposed of.
Let a copy of this final order be supplied to both the parties at free of costs.
Dictated & corrected by me
............................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY,) ................ ..........................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY,)
I concur,
........................................
MEMBER
(NIROD BARAN ROY CHOWDHURY)
