SAMBHUNANDY Vs. MONOJ CHOWDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 19.08.2016, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. A/19/2015, "Monoj Chowdhury Vs. Sambu Nandy & Ors.", vide which, while allowing the appeal, the order dated 26.12.2014, passed by the District Forum South 24-Parganas in consumer complaint No. 269/2014, filed by the present respondent, was set aside.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent Monoj Chowdhury entered into an agreement for sale with the petitioner Sambhu Nandy to purchase a flat, measuring about 500 sq. ft. of built up area, premises No. 15/1/17B Jhil Road, Kolkata for a consideration of Rs. 11,00,000.00 @ Rs. 2,200.00 per sq. ft. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 5,00,000.00 by cheque and it was agreed that within three months, the construction of the building shall be completed, possession shall be delivered and registered deed shall be executed by the petitioner after receiving the balance amount of Rs. 6,00,000.00 from the complainant. It was also agreed that if the OPs failed to deliver the possession within 6 months, they were liable to refund the entire deposited amount along with compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs. It was stated in the consumer complaint that despite receiving payment of Rs. 5 lakh from the complainant, the OPs did not start the construction work and delayed the matters under different pretext. Thereafter, the petitioner refunded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000.00 to the complainant on different dates in the year 2013. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant filed the consumer complaint, seeking directions to the petitioner to complete the construction and deliver possession of the property, or to refund the amount deposited with interest @12% p.a. The complainant also requested for a compensation of Rs. 5 lakh on account of mental harassment and Rs. 50,000.00 as cost of litigation.

(3.) The complaint was contested by the petitioner/OP-1 by filing a written statement before the District Forum, saying that there was a joint venture between the OP-1 & OP-2 & 3 according to which, the construction of the building was to be completed within 18 months. However, the OP-2 & 3 did not give the possession of the premises to OP-1 for the said construction and also did not get the building plans etc. sanctioned. The OP-2 & 3 also stated in their separate replies that sanctioned plan could not be obtained from the Municipal Corporation for construction of the building. The petitioner also stated in his written reply that he started making payment to the complainants, but due to lack of funds, he could not refund the whole money.