PUSPAK INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD Vs. SANTANU MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners being aggrieved of concurrent finding of the foras below against them have preferred this revision.

(2.) Briefly put, the facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that petitioner no. 1 is a Company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the business of real estate development. Petitioner no. 2 is the director of petitioner no.1 Company. Respondent filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the petitioners alleging that he entered into an agreement to purchase flat no. A-408, Type A at the 4th Floor with super built up area of 980 sq. ft. alongwith covered parking in the upcoming project of the opposite parties situated at Ichapore Nilgang Gram Panchayat P.S.Barasat, District North 24 Parganas for a total consideration of Rs.13,75,000/-. Pursuant to the agreement, respondent paid Rs.2,75,000/- to the petitioner as booking amount. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the balance payment was to be made in construction linked instalments. According to the complainant, the opposite parties failed to keep him informed about the progress of construction and suddenly vide letter dated 04.03.2010 called upon the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.13,06,250/- against the balance price of the flat. The demand was much more than the agreed price of the flat. Therefore, the complainant approached the opposite parties and protested against the demand. On this, the opposite party told the complainant that there was some calculation error and they would rectify the payment. Thereafter, the opposite parties demanded a sum of Rs.25000/- from the complainant against the charges for electric connection, which was also paid. It is also alleged that the opposite parties no. 1 & 2 instead of informing the complainant about the progress of work and justifying their demand, cancelled the allotment of the flat and also refused to refund the advance money of Rs.3,00,000/- paid by the complainant. This led to the filing of the complaint.

(3.) The opposite Parties in their written statement admitted that petitioner had booked flat in their project and paid booking amount of Rs.2,75,000/-. It was also admitted that subsequently a sum of Rs.25000/- was also paid against the demand towards the electricity connection. Other allegations of the complainant were denied. According to the opposite parties, the complainant failed to pay the construction linked instalments despite being intimated and because of his failure to pay the balance amount, his allotment was ultimately cancelled. According to the opposite parties, there was no deficiency in service on their part because the complainant / respondent had failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement.