IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Even after more than 4 yrs. from date of agreement, Respondents did not file any document showing that the delay was due to reason which was beyond their control.
(2) Respondents did not whisper anything as to when would they be able to handover the plot of land and Bungalow to Complainants.
(3) Allottees cannot be expected to keep on paying more and more money to Developer if they find that Developer is not in a position to complete the construction within stipulated period of time or even within reasonable period thereafter.

JUDGMENT

Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member.—The instant complaint is filed by the Complainants namely Mrs. Sumita Ghosh and Dr. Avijit Ghosh herein against M/S, India Green Reality (P) Ltd./ OP No. 1 and its Director Mr. Amitava Samanta/OP No. 2 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) alleging deficiency in service.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that being informed about the on going project developed by the OPs. the Complainants contacted with the Opposite Party No. 2 who is the Director of Opposite Party No. 1 of this case. The Complainants applied for booking of a Bungalow in the project called “Sabuj Potro” near Shantiniketan, Bolpur, Disrict – Birbhum which was launched by Opposite Parties. Opposite Party No. 1 is the developer/promoter-cum-land owner represented by its Director i.e. Opposite Party No.2. keeping in mind a short trip to Shantiniketan complainants booked one such plot measuring 2710 sq.ft. for a Bungalow thereon being constructed area of 1995 sq.ft. super built area, being the Bungalow No. 157 named as ‘Dopati’ on 05.03.2013 upon payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- ( Rupees one lakh) by Cheque No. 024985 dated 08.03.2013 drawn on Allahabad Bank, Patuli Branch against the consideration amount fixed at Rs. 36,00,000/- ( Rupees thirty six lakh) only. Subsequent to the payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- ( Rupees one lakh) the complainants continued to make payment of different amount on different dates and the Opposite Party granted receipts without any objection and after payment of Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees seven lakh fifty thousand) the execution of the agreement for sale has been signed by the parties on 24.02.2014. The complainants also stated in their petition of complaint that after payment of Rs.3,25,000/- (Rupees three lakh twenty-five thousand) on 25.03.2013 the Bungalow plot No.157 named as “Dopati” had been rescheduled as Bangalow Plot No.60 and the name of the Bungalow was “Karobi” which has been again rescheduled later as Bunglow No. 40 though the name of the Bungalow “Korobi” was unchanged. Complainants have made last payment of Rs. 36,000/- (Rupees thirty-six thousand) by cheque No. 005113 dated 27.12.2015 drawn on Allahabad Bank, Mukul Bose Branch and the OP granted receipt on 02.01.2016 to that effect. The complainants paid Rs. 16,86,000/- (Rupees sixteen lakhs eighty-six thousand) in total for the said Bungalow but it has been shocking to them when they observed through physical verification on 01.02.2016 they have noticed that no infrastructure development and construction of the Bungalow had been done even after two years as per terms of agreement. The complainants understood that they became victim of unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. The OPs have committed intentional delay in delivery of the possession of the plot with Bungalow and registration thereof though they received Rs. 16,86,000/- (Rupees sixteen lakhs eighty-six thousand) from the complainants. The complainants sent a letter dated 22.05.2017 with the request to return the amount which was paid by them. But the OPs did not give any reply to that letter. Finding no other alternative, complainants filed the instant complaint before this Commission praying for return of Rs. 16,86,000/- (Rupees sixteen lakhs eighty-six thousand) with interest @ 18% p.a. alongwith compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) and litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/- ( Rupees twenty thousand).

3. The complaint was resisted by filing written statement by the OPs. They did not utter a single word on the issue of delay that has occurred on their part, rather they stated in the written version that complainants are defaulter in making payments. But there is no denial on the part of OPs that complainants made payment and the OPs stated that the paid amount, as stated by the complainants, is subject to verification by the Court. They also stated that complainants have falsely stated about the progress of the project, rather OPs stated that they have not committed