Complaint Case No. SC/07/O/2007. Case: Pandav Roy and Ors. Vs Merlin Projects Ltd. and Ors.. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
|Case Number:||Complaint Case No. SC/07/O/2007|
|Party Name:||Pandav Roy and Ors. Vs Merlin Projects Ltd. and Ors.|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: Tapas Mukhopadhyay, Advocate and For Respondents: Subhra Das and Banani Upadhyay Bhattcherjeee, Advocates|
|Judges:||Samaresh Prasad Chowdhury, (Presiding Member)|
|Issue:||Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 17, 2(1)(d); Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Sections 13(2), 13(4)|
|Judgement Date:||April 10, 2017|
|Court:||West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission|
Samaresh Prasad Chowdhury, (Presiding Member), (Kolkata)
The instant complaint under Section 17 (wrongly mentioned U/s. 12A) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for brevity, "the Act") is at the instance of intending purchasers against the developer and its Manager (OP Nos. 1 and 2 respectively) and also against the Financer Bank (OP No. 3) on the allegation of deficiency in services on the part of them in a consumer dispute of housing construction.
Succinctly put, complainant's case is that they had entered into an agreement with the OP No. 1 to purchase of a Row House containing an area of land measuring 3 cottahas more or less having a total constructed area of 1380 sq.ft. being No. B-15 in the Complex - "The Terrace" at Merlin Greens lying and situated at Mouza - Kriparampur, P.S. - Bishnupur, District - South 24 Parganas at a total consideration of Rs. 14,25,000/-. Complainants paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on that date to the OP No. 1 as an earnest money. On that date, a supplementary agreement was also executed with certain terms and conditions. The complainants have stated that they have also paid a sum of Rs. 1,93,750/- only towards the balance earnest money and thereby paid a total sum of Rs. 2,43,750/- as full and final settlement of earnest money which was duly reflected in the Tripartite Agreement between the parties executed on 21.01.2004. The complainants have stated that they approached OP No. 3 Bank for obtaining a house building loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- which was duly sanctioned and the OP-3 Bank released a sum of Rs. 13,81,250/- to the OP No. 1 out of sanctioned loan amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- keeping a sum of Rs. 1,18,750/- for the purpose of registration of deed of conveyance. The complainants have stated that OP No. 1 received a total sum of Rs. 16,25,000/- out of which Rs. 14,25,000/- was the consideration money and Rs. 2,00,000/- towards contribution in the Corpus Fund and for other charges like maintenance etc. The complainants were put in possession on 20.04.2004 and the OPs provided water supply, electricity, generator service and also security services. On 30.06.2004, the complainant No. 2 requested the OPs to get the deed of conveyance duly registered in their favour but the same has not been done. The complain ants submit that the OP No. 1 despite receipt of entire consideration amount and also Rs. 2,00,000/- towards making payment to the Corpus Fund and for other charges did not execute the sale deed. But by a letter dated 23.10.2006, the OP No. 2 informed the complainants that since they had failed to fulfil their financial obligation, in as much as the cheque of Rs. 1,93,750/- had been dishonoured twice and they had also defaulted in payment of instalments to the Bank, the deed of agreement dated 01.05.2003 had been cancelled and the complainants were being treated as trespassers and they were asked to vacate the premises in question. As all the basic facilities had been withdrawn, the complainants were compelled to shift from the house on 23.10.2006. The complainants alleged that the OP No. 1 had taken possession of the property mala fide and transferred to a third party in collusion with the OP No. 3 bank at Rs. 20,51,000/- though it was officially valued at Rs. 31,25,100/- as per report of the Registry Office. The complainants submit that although they were ready and willing to repay their home loan in full but with the designed motive the complainants were not allowed to do the same. Hence, the complainants lodged the complaint with prayer for certain reliefs, viz. - (a) Rs. 56,25,000/- as compensation in lieu of their property; (b) Rs. 16,25,000/- be paid to reimburse actual house rent paid by them after being unlawfully evicted from their property; (c) Rs. 10,00,000/- as damages for harassment and mental agony; (d) Rs. 10,00,000/- as litigation cost etc.
The OP Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. the developer company and its Manager resisted the claim of the complainants. They have stated that the amount of Rs. 1,93,750/- issued by the complainants as earnest money was dishonoured twice...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL