w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Director, M/s. Desie Agro Resorts Development Pvt. Ltd. v/s Suthirtha Saha

    First Appeal No. 453 of 2015 in Complaint Case No. 30 of 2012

    Decided On, 30 June 2016

    At, West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALIDAS MUKHERJEE
    By, PRESIDENT
    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY
    By, MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA
    By, MEMBER

    For the Appellant: Chandrasekhar Mukherjee, Advocate. For the Respondent: Tapan Kanti Chaudhuri, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Kalidas Mukherjee, President

These are the three Appeals heard analogously directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I in CC 30 of 2012 (A 453 of 2015); CC 29 of 2012 (A 454 of 2015); CC 164 of 2012 (A 1448 of 2014) allowing the complaint and directing the OP to refund the amount and pay compensation and litigation cost.

The case of the Complainants/Respondents, in short, is that they paid entire consideration amount, but the OP/Appellant did not deliver possession. Under the circumstances, the complaints were filed before the Learned District Forum praying for refund of the amount, compensation and cost.

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that there was no written agreement between the parties. It is contended that the Complainants claimed refund and when the hiring of service is surrendered there is no question of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. It is contended that the Learned District Forum was not justified in passing the impugned order.

The Learned Counsel for the Respondents/Complainants has submitted that the certificate was issued by the OP/Appellant that the development of the land will be made within six months. It is submitted that the entire consideration amount was paid, but the OP did not issue any paper for entering into the agreement. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents has referred decisions of the Hon'ble National Commission in FA 100 of 2013 [Shri Pavel Garg vs. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., decided on 28/02/14]; RP 355 of 2013 [M/s Mukherji Builders and Construction Corporation vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Annupurna Mishra, decided on 26/04/13]; CC 1180 of 2015 [Navneet Chabra vs. United Ltd., decided on 05/05/16]; CC 198 of 2011 [Dr. Naren P. Sheth & Anr. vs. M/s Lodha Group & Anr., decided on 05/05/16].

We have heard the submission made by both sides and perused the papers on record. It is in the complaints that after payment of the entire consideration amount the OP did not deliver possession and the Complainants visited the office of the OP several times and requested for arranging the joint inspection of the developed land in question and delivery of possession on completion of legal formalities, but to no effect.

Evidently, the consideration amount was paid and the OP did not deliver possession of the developed land which shows deficiency in service on th

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

e part of the OP/Appellant. The Learned District Forum having considered all the aspects, was justified in passing the impugned orders. The Appeals are dismissed. The impugned judgments are affirmed. This judgment will govern all the Appeals as stated above.
O R