AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This first appeal has been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 19.12.2014, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ''the State Commission'') in consumer complaint No. 172/2013, filed by the appellant, vide which, the said complaint was ordered to be dismissed.
Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent/opposite party (OP) for appearance before this Commission, but the respondent did not appear despite service.
The facts of the case are that the complainant/appellant Dr. Bhanu Prasad Khan booked a flat No. 1-G, 1 st Floor in "TITAS Apartment" of the OP Builder by making payment of 1 lakh through cheque No. 077887 dated 29.07.2012 drawn on State Bank of India, Howrah Main Branch as stated in the consumer complaint. The complainant was assured that the said flat was almost ready for use and shall be transferred to him within a period of four weeks, and that there was no need of executing an agreement between the parties. However, on the failure of the OP to handover the said flat, the complainant sent a notice dated 2.04.2003, to the OP. In reply to the said notice, the OP asked him to take refund of the money paid by him. However, the complainant again requested the OP to have the sale-deed executed in his favour, but the OP returned the booking amount by cheque as an enclosure to his letter dated 30.05.2013 addressed to the complainant. The said cheque was, however, returned by the complainant. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question seeking directions to the OP to handover the possession of the flat to him and also to have the sale-deed executed. In addition, a compensation of 15 lakh was also demanded.
The State Commission dismissed the consumer complaint as per impugned order, holding that the same was not maintainable in the absence of a written contract between the parties. The State Commission held that the receipt for the booking amount of 1 lakh could not be treated as an agreement between the parties. Being aggrieved against the said order of the State Commission, the appellant/complainant is before this Commission by way of the present first appeal.
During hearing, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that at this stage, he simply wanted the money deposited by him with the OP returned alongwith interest, although he had previously refused to receive the cheque sent by the OP.
A perusal of the material on record indicates that the OP stated in the written version filed before the State Commission that the alleged payment of 1 lakh was in connection with a transaction, having no connection with the booking of the flat in any manner. There was no written contract between the complainant and the OP. The OP admitted that the amount in question, was returned to the complainant and he was requested to encash the said cheque, but he failed to do so.
The complainant stated in his complaint that there was a verbal agreement with the OP that the consideration money for the flat will be 1700/- per sq. ft. but later on, the OP had demanded a higher price, saying that the consideration money would be 2700/- per sq. ft.
Keeping in view the request made by the complainant at the time of arguments, the amount of 1 lakh deposited by the complainant with the OP is ordered to be returned forthwith. Since the said amount has been lying deposited with the OP for a considerable time and he has been using this money all these years, it shall be in the fitness of things that interest @9% p.a. on the deposited amount from the date of deposit till realisation be awarded to the complainant. This first appeal stands allowed in these terms and the OP Builder is directed to return the amount of 1 lakh to the complainant alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of deposit till realisation, within a period of four weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs.