IMPORTANT POINT
A person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of the flat allotted to him and is entitled to seek refund of the amt. paid by him along with compensation

JUDGMENT

Shyamal Kumar Ghosh, Member.—The instant consumer case has been filed by the complainant against the opposite-parties praying for delivery of possession, execution and registration of the deed of conveyance, alternatively refund of amount of Rs. 14,52,050/- along with interest, compensation and cost.

2. The brief fact of the case is that complainant is an old aged widow and issueless. The complainant intended to purchase a flat measuring area about 900 sft. In this regard the complainant approached the op no – 1/ developer and the developer company assured the complainant to arrange a flat under the project viz. ‘Mayer Bari’. The total consideration amount has been fixed for Rs. 20,73,500/-. The complainant has paid advance amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- to the op developer. To that effect an agreement for sale dated 19/03/2014 has been executed between the parties. The complainant paid Rs 14,52,050/- (including Rs. 8,00,000/- towards an advance) to the op/developer on different dates. The op/developer promised to complete the said project viz. ‘Mayer Bari’ within time and handover the possession of the flat to the complainant within 15/04/2015. The developer did not start their project work. They have failed to complete their project work within time. The complainant sent a letter dated 01/11/2014 to the op/developer with a request for handing over the possession of the said flat in question. But the op /developer by sending a letter dated 18/11/2014, demanded further balance consideration amount from the complainant. The complainant on several occasion requested the op/developer to handover the possession of the flat but they did not pay any heed. The complainant visited the project spot. But no project construction was started. Practically the project work was abandoned. There was no chance to handover the possession of the flat in question to the complainant. There is a gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the ops. Having no other alternative, the complainant knocked at the door of the Commission for getting relief or reliefs against the opposite-parties.

3. No written-version was filed by the ops and as such the case runs ex-parte against the opposite-parties.

4. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that there is a clear gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the ops as in spite of payment of Rs. 14,52,050/- to the developer out of total consideration amount of Rs. 20,73,500/- no construction work has been done by the developer within the stipulated period of time. The complainant on several occasions, requested the ops to handover the possession of the flat in question but in vain. Ld counsel further submitted that at present there is no existence of the project work viz. Mayer Bari as at the proposed site no construction work has been found. There is no possibility to handover the said flat in habitable condition to the complainant in near future and as such ld counsel has prayed for refund of amount of Rs. 14,52,050/- with interest.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant. Considered his submissions.

6. Perused all relevant documents and papers.

7. Before explaining the other issues involved in the complaint case, we try to decide point no – 1 whether the instant complaint case falls well within the purview of Consumer Protection Act or not as well as point no – 2 whether there is any gross negligence or deficiency in service on the part of ops in the instant case or not.

8. Regarding the payments made by the complainants, we take the following notes:-

It is admitted fact that the complainant has already paid Rs. 14,52,050/- to the op/developer on the different dates out of total consideration amount of Rs. 20,73,500/- in respect of flat no – 3 & 4 at the first floor which is clearly revealed from the letter dated 18/11/2014 written by op/developer/Solac