##PAGE1##

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL

FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/19/A/11/2020

M/s. Somadhan Realtor Pvt. Ltd. & Another PRESENT ADDRESS - 58F, Hindusthan Park, 3rd Floor, P.S.- Gariahat, Dist. South 24 Pgs.,

Kolkata -700 029.,WEST BENGAL.

Sri Debasish Sarkar PRESENT ADDRESS - S/o Lt. Dhirendra Chandra Sarkar, 58F, Hindusthan Park, 3rd Floor, P.S.-

Gariahat, Dist. South 24 Pgs., Kolkata -700 029.,WEST BENGAL.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus

Bhola Biswas PRESENT ADDRESS - S/o Lt. Joydeb Biswas, 3, Durganagar Chakdaha, Nadia, P.S.- Chakdah,

Dist. Nadia, W.B. - 741 222. ,WEST BENGAL.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIBHAS RANJAN DE , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY , MEMBER

FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. Debraj De (Advocate)

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

PRATYUSH SARKAR,SOMNATH MONDAL (Advocate)

DATED: 07/04/2026

ORDER

MRIDULA ROY, MEMBER I. The instant appeal is filed assailing the order dated 23.10.2019

passed by the Ld. Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Calcutta Unit-III in Complaint case No. CC/609/2018, allowing the said complaint ex parte with cost directing the OPs to pay Rs. 13,71,000 alongwith interest (in form of compensation) at the rate of 9% per annum from 18.08.2016 (date of disbursement of loan amount by the bank) till date (of passing the order) within two months from the date of the order, further directing the Ops to pay Rs. 10,000 as litigation cost to the Complainant within the aforesaid period of two months, in default, the entire sum would

carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till realisation.

II. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied by with the said order the Ops have preferred the instant appeal on the grounds, inter alia, that the Ld. District Forum failed to consider the fact that the Respondent / Complainant had alleged that they had entered in to two agreements for sale, one dated 20.04.2016 for purchasing a flat and another on 02.08.2016 for purchasing a commercial space for a total consideration of (Rs. 11,71,000 for flat and Rs. 4,40,000 for commercial space = Rs.16,11,000 only) but, it is admitted that the Complainant paid Rs. 14,11,000 till date. Moreover, it is further admitted that the Complainant obtained bank loan for making payment of consideration amount and till date of passing the impugned order the said bank loan has not been liquidated. Hence, the Complainant cannot claim refund of consideration amount. It is further stated by the Appellant that though OP No. 2 / Respondent No. 2 herein received notice of complaint case but could not appear before the Jurisdictional Forum for illness of his father who ultimately died on 06.09.2018 for which the Ops could not file their written objection within specified period. Furthermore, the Ld. Jurisdictional Forum failed to consider the fact that the Complainant stated he was not in a position to pay EMI payable to the bank and requested the OP developer to pay EMI on his behalf. Accordingly, the appellant

prays for setting aside all the impugned orders.

III. In course of hearing Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that he is an employee of an Oil Company at Oman. He with a view of hefty return invested his money in real estate by buying one flat and one commercial space. Accordingly, vide letter dated 20.01.2018 expressed his desire to cancel the loan agreement dated 20.04.2016 and 02.08.2016 on the plea of his inability to pay EMIs of the bank and as such requested the appellant to pay EMI of the Bank Loan and further obtained a loan of Rs. 40,000 from the Appellant undertaking vide letter dated 20.01.2018. However, the Complainant with not carry out his undertaking in

regard to repay the same amount on earliest.

On the other hand, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent has submitted that the Respondent / OP entered into an agreement for sale dated 20.04.2016 in respect of a flat and thereafter, the OP No.2 allotted one car parking space in favour of him and therefore, another agreement was executed on 02.08.2016. It is