DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,
KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. __16_ _ OF ___2018
DATE OF FILING : 15.2.2018 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:12 .2.2019
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker
COMPLAINANT : Bishnu Charan Mallick, son of late Sadhu Charan Mallick of flat no.C, Block-II, Mandir Apartment, Narendrapur, P.O Narendrapur, P.S Sonarpur, Kolkata-103.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. Bipin Khandelwal, son of Sri Gyasiram Khandelwal of 162/A/17, Lake Gardens, P.O Lake Gardens, P.S Lake, Kolkata-45.
2. Rabindra Kumar Bagrodia, son of M.L Bagrodia of P-491, C.I.T Scheme, XLVII, Keyatala Road, P.S Gariahat, Kolkata-29.
3. Ruchi Khandelwal, wife of Sanjay Khandelwal of 162/A/17, Lake Gardens, P.O Lake Gardens, P.S Lake, Kolkata-45
4. Giridharilal Sharma, son of Banwarilal Sharma of 1, British Indian Street, P.S Hare Street, Kolkata-79.
5. Rajesh Kumar Shyamsukha , son of Banwarilal Shyamsukha of 6, Lucas Lane, P.S Hre Street, Kolkata-1.
6. Sumer Molodha, son of Padam chand Lodha of 1, British Indian Street, P.S Hare Street, Kolkata-79, all represented by their Constituted Attorney Sri Ravindra Kumar Bagrodia, O.P-2, 104, N.S.C Bose Road, P.O Narendrapur, P.S Sonarpur, Kolkata-103, Dist. South 24-Parganas, now residing at 491, C.I.T Scheme, XLVII, Keyatala Road, P.S Gariahat, Kolkata-29.
__________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, the complainant has filed the instant case under section 12, C.P Act, 1986.
The facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follows.
Complainant decided to purchase a flat measuring 511 sq.ft as succinctly described in schedule to the complaint from the O.Ps and the O.Ps also agreed to sell the said flat to the complainant for a consideration price of Rs.2,20,000/- . Sale agreement was executed by and between the parties on 12.9.1996. Total consideration price has also been paid to the O.Ps by the complainant and the possession of the flat has also been made over to the complainant in the month of February, 1997. But, since then, no registration of the flat has been effected in favour of the complainant by the O.Ps and, therefore, the complainant has approached this Forum, praying for registration of the flat in his favour and payment of compensation. Hence, this case.
None of the O.Ps except the O.P-2 has turned up to contest the case despite service of notice upon them. So, the case is heard exparte against them.
It is only O.P-2 who has been contesting the case by filing written statement ,wherein it is contended inter alia that he on behalf of the other O.ps constructed 72 flats in the said project and possession of all the flats was also delivered to the purchasers. Registration of all the flats ,but one which belongs to the complainant, were also done in favour of the purchasers. Complainant could not collect the money required to complete the registration and, therefore, he was not ready and willing to get the flat registered. So, for 20 years, he slept over the matter and nothing is heard from him. He is always ready and willing to register the flat in favour of the complainant, provided proper order is passed to exempt him from the liability of Income Tax.
Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Are the O.Ps guilty of deficiency in service for not registering the flat in favour of the complainant ?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Evidence on affidavit is led by both the parties and the same are kept in the record. BNA filed by the parties are also kept in the record after consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 & 2 :
Already heard the submissions of Ld. Lawyers appearing for the parties. Perused the petition of complaint, written version of O.P-2 and also the other materials on record. Considered all these along with the submissions of Ld. Lawyers ,appearing for the parties.
It is true that the complainant has slept for about 20 years after getting the possession of the flat purchased by him from the O.Ps. Ld. Lawyer appearing for the O.P has contended that the complainant has no explanation on why he slept for 20 years without getting the flat registered. True, the complainant has no explanation . But, inability of the complainant to give any such explanation does not destroy his right to get the flat registered in his favour. Non-registration of a flat by the developer and the owners of the land in favour of the purchaser of the flat is a continuing cause of action and such cause of action is never subject to any law of limitation.
Regards being had to this position of law, we feel no hesitation whatsoever to say that the instant case is not barred by limitation for laches, whatever it may be, on the part of the complainant. The complainant is still entitled to have the flat registered in his name and the developers i.e the O.Ps are still liable to execute and register the sale deed in respect of the flat of the complainant in favour of the complainant.
In the result, the case succeeds .
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is decreed on contest against the O.P-2 with a cost of Rs.5,000/- and allowed exparte against the rest of the O.Ps without any cost.
All the O.Ps are directed to execute and register the sale deed in respect of the subject flat in favour of the complainant within a month of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to get the sale deed registered through the instrumentality of this Forum.
No compensation whatsoever is awarded in favour of the complainant having taken into consideration the ingrained lethargy of the complainant.
Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
President
I / We agree
Member Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
