N.K.ENTERPRISE Vs. NARAYAN PRASAD SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) West Bengal State Govt. acquired some land for housing purposes, within the jurisdiction of South Dum Dum Municipality, and transferred the said land to West Bengal Housing Board. Part of the said land was transferred by the Board to South Dum Dum Municipality, for development of housing on the said land. South Dum Dum Municipality executed an agreement with the appellants on 7.7.2004. An agreement was thereafter executed between South Dum Dum Municipality, the appellants and the complainants whereunder two residential flats admeasuring 2495 Sq.ft. of super built up area in a proposed project, namely, 'Home Town' were agreed to be constructed and sold to the complainants for a total consideration of Rs.26,91,000/-. The possession of the flats, according to the complainants, was to be delivered to them in the year 2009 itself. This is also the case of the complainants that they had paid a sum of Rs.2,51,000/- to the appellants on 31.12.2007 and have made a total payment of Rs.35,76,000/- as detailed in para 11 of the complaint to the appellants, in addition to Rs.18 lakhs paid in cash, for which no receipt was issued to them. Since possession of the allotted flats was not given to them, the complainants approached the concerned State Commission by way of Consumer Complaint No. 409 of 2014. The said consumer complaint, however, was dismissed for want of prosecution. The complainants thereafter instituted a fresh consumer complaint before the State Commission seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) The complaint was resisted by the appellants who took a preliminary objection that in view of the first complaint having been dismissed by the State Commission, a second consumer complaint was not maintainable. On merits, the appellants admitted the agreement executed with the complainants. As regards the payment pleaded in para 11 of the consumer complaint, they denied the payment chart mentioned in para 11 of the complaint and alleged that the complainants had procured fabricated documents as money receipts. The appellants also stated that the complainants never paid 'most of the amounts' as shown in the chart.

(3.) The State Commission vide impugned order dated 22.4.2016 directed as under:-