PRANABESH DAS Vs. CANOPY PROJECTS LTD REP
Canopy Projects Ltd Rep
Click here to view full judgement.
C VISWANATH,J. -
(1.) This Appeal is filed against the order dated 06.12.2017 of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Commission, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission) in CC/460/2015.
(2.) Case of the Appellants/Complainants is that on 15.02.2007 they entered into an agreement with the Respondent/Opposite Party for purchase of a developed plot, measuring 7.5 Cottah, for a consideration of Rs.22,50,000/-, out of which Complainants paid Rs.20,25,000/- on different dates. As per the Agreement, the plot was to be developed in two Phases, Phase I was to be completed by December, 2006 and Phase II by December, 2007, but the Opposite Party failed to do so. Complainants sent a legal notice dated 22.06.2015 to the Opposite Party. Opposite Party replied to the legal notice, vide letter dated 03.07.2015, wherein they admitted having received an amount of Rs.20,25,000/-and also agreed to refund the entire amount. On 18.07.2015, Opposite Party sent an email containing offer of settlement. Since the terms of settlement were not acceptable to the Complainants, on 03.09.2015 they approached the Consumer Affairs Department for redressal of their grievance. On 29.9.2015, the Opposite Party agreed to refund the principal amount of Rs.20,25,000/- on the next date i.e. 15.10.2015, but the Opposite Party failed to make payment. Claiming deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, Complainants filed Consumer Complaint before the State Commission with the following prayer to:
"i) The opposite party to handover the developed plot of land as per agreement or failing which refund the amount of Rs.20,25,0000/- which has been paid by the Complainants, the details have already been given in para 4 and 6 plus interest @ 16% till date of payment calculated as on 25.10.2015 as Rs.21,78,960/-.
To pay the compensation towards mental torture, damage and cost Rs.10,000/-.
Any other order or orders as your Honour deem fit."
(3.) Complaint was contested by the Opposite Party/Respondent on the ground that the Opposite Party could not develop the plot in time, since State of West Bengal initiated vesting proceedings against them. Since the matter was subjudice in Calcutta High Court, nature of the land could not be changed by the Opposite Parties.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.