IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation - The complainants cannot be compelled to wait any more for the builder to deliver and they are entitled to seek refund of the money paid by them along with appropriate compensation.

ORDER

Manojit Mandal, President—The instant complaint under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( in short ‘the Act’) is at the instance of the complainant against the Opposite parties on the allegation of deficiency of services on the part of the Opposite parties in a consumer dispute of housing construction.

2. The facts of the complaint case in short is that Opposite party No. 1 is the Private Limited Company. The Opposite parties No. 2 & 3 are the representatives of the Opposite party No. 1 Company. The Opposite parties were going to construct a housing complex known as ‘Royal Enclave’, comprising the flat Units, car parking space, commercial spaces, Duplex Bungalow etc. at mouza Hatishala, J.L. No. 9, R.S. No. 31, Touzi No. 2999, comprised in R.S. Dag No. 1288, appertaining to R.S. Khatian No. 652 in the District of South 24 Parganas.

3. The complainant wanted to purchase a residential flat and for which she and the Opposite parties entered into an agreement / Memorandum of Understanding on 25/01/2016.

4. It was agreed that the complainant will purchase one 2 BHK flat having super built up area of 750 sq. ft. more or less. In this agreement dated 25/01/2016 it was agreed that the total consideration of the said flat was fixed at Rs.21,50,000/- (Rupees twenty one lakh and fifty thousand) only ( flat price plus car parking worth Rs. 3,50,000/-).

5. It is the further case of the complainant that the complainant paid Rs.4,30,000/- (Rupees four lakh and thirty thousand) only to the Opposite parties No. 1,2 & 3 as advance payment to book the flat out of the said 21,50,000/-.

6. Further case of the complainant is that it was agreed between the parties that the said flat will be completed by the Opposite parties within 42 months from the date of signing of this Memorandum of Understanding. It was further agreed that possession of the flat will be handed over to the complainant within the said stipulated time.

7. Further case of the complainant is that the complainant did not find any progress in the development of the said project and by this time her mother-in-law has been diagnosed with a neuro disease. Due to urgency the complainant wrote a letter to the Opposite party No. 1 on 08/03/2017 for refunding the said advance as early as possible and the Opposite party No. 1 received the said letter on 08/03/2017.

8. Further case of the complainant is that the Opposite parties did not take any steps and no progress or development was made for the development of the said project. As such, on 12/07/2019 the complainant wrote a letter requesting them for refund of the money as the money was needed due to the treatment of the mother-in-law of the complainant. The Opposite parties did not take any steps for the development of the project. The Opposite parties considered the letters sent by the complainant to them and being understood the deficiency in service even negligence, the Opposite parties refunded 1,10,000/- (Rupees one lakh and ten thousand) only to the complainant out of Rs.4,30,000/- (Rupees four lakh and thirty thousand) only. The Opposite parties did not try to refund the balance deposited amount of Rs.3,20,000/- (Rupees three lakh and twenty thousand) only.

9. In this regard, all her requests and persuasions went in vain. Hence, the complainant approached this Commission with a prayer for following reliefs viz.:—

“Hence it is prayed that your lordship would be pleased to allow this complaint petition and be pleased to give direction upon the OPs to refund the balance deposited amount of Rs.3,20,000/- as they failed to provide service in favour of the complainant and be pleased to give direction upon the OPs to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment both by mentally, physically and economically and also litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.”

10. Despite service of notice the Opposite parties No. 1, 2 & 3 did not appear to contest the case. As such, the case was heard ex parte against the Opposite parties.

11