West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/274/2015

Sri Saumen Bhowmik, S/O Sri Sachindra Narayan Bhaumik. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. M/S. Raj Enterprise A Partnership Firm. - Opp.Party(s)

Smt. Mousumi Chakraborty.

10 Dec 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144

 

      C.C. CASE NO. _274_ OF ___2015__

 

DATE OF FILING :11.6.2015                      DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  10.12.2015

 

Present                        :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :    Sharmi Basu &  Subrata Sarker

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT             : Sri Saumen Bhaumik,s/o Sri Sachindra Narayan Bhaumik of A-3, Rabindra Nagar, P.O Rabindra Nagar, P.S. Metiabruz, Kolkata – 18.

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                            :    1.     M/s Raj Infrastructure, represented by Partners

                                                2.     Sri Arup Choudhury,s/o late Matindranath Choudhury

                                                3.   Sri Rajdeep Choudhury,s/o Sri Arup Choudhury

                                                Both 2 and 3 are of 4, Graham Road, P.S. Jadavpur, Kol-40.

4.Smt. Renubala Shil,w/o Sri Subodh Chandra Shil of 104/E, Aswini Nagar Colony, P.S Jadavpur, Kolkata – 40.

_______________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

 

Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President           

The short of the complainant is that  he was looking for a suitable residential flat in Jadavpur locality and detected a new building under construction in the said locality and constructed by O.P-1 who offered him to sell a flat in the proposed new building which will be constructed at premises no.104/E, Aswini Nagar Colony, P.S. Jadavpur, Kolkata – 40 . Accordingly complainant was interested to get a residential accommodation at the proposed new building and entered into an agreement with O.P-1 on 24.1.2011 to purchase a self contained flat measuring more or less 760 sq.ft super built up area of entire First Floor at a total consideration of Rs.12,16000/- and complainant already paid Rs.13 lacs to the O.P through cheque on different dates which was acknowledged by the O.P-1. The complainant has relied by the submitting the photocopy of the agreement sale dated 24.1.2011 along with photocopy of Bank statement in the year 2011 to 2014 which are annexed as Annexure A and B respectively. The complainant has also relied the development agreement of O.P-4 and the developer dated 26.11.2010 and photocopy of registered general Power of Attorney on the said date which are annexed C & D respectively. It has alleged that after completion complainant several times requested O.P nos. 2 and 3 to deliver possession and arrange for deed of conveyance but the O.P inspite of assurance did not pay any heed to it ,for which, complainant compelled to file legal notice upon O.P nos. 1 to 4 through Ld. Advocate Mousumi Chakraborty . Accordingly complainant prays for delivery of khas possession including execution and registration of the deed of conveyance in the name of the complainant in respect of the said flat measuring 760 sq.ft super built up area on the entire first floor of the said building and directed to pay reasonable compensation of Rs.5 lacs and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-.

It appears from the order sheet that inspite of receipt of the notice and paper cutting agiasnt O.P nos. 2 and 3 none turned up ,for which, the case is taken up for exparte evidence and complainant has filed the evidence in chief supported by an affidavit.

In this circumstances to expedite the mater particularly when the complainant has already paid more than the agreed amount i.e. Rs.13 lacs, his complaint should be redressed expeditiously.

Point for decision in this case is whether the O.Ps acted deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by non-delivery of possession inspite of receipt of the consideration.

Decision with reasons

We have perused the Annexure A –Agreement for Sale, Annexure B-Bank Statement , Annexure C-Agreement in between the owner and the developer and Annexure D-General Power of Attorney and we find that complainant has been able to prove his case in a summary trial ,particularly when after completion of service of summon none of the O.Ps turned up which clearly suggest that neither the developer O.P nos. 2 and 3, nor the landlord has anything to say in this regard because they have accepted the money on assurance through agreement for sale to deliver self contained flat measuring 760 sq.ft in the entire First Floor but did not do the same. It is nothing but a glaring example of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, particularly when he has accepted the entire consideration money and to some extent excess money ,probably for extra work.

So, we are highly satisfied and it is

                                                                        Ordered

That the complaint case no. 274 of 2015 is allowed in exparte due to non-appearance of the O.P knowing existence of this case ,with cost of Rs.10,000/- which will be borne jointly and/or severally by the O.Ps.

The O.P nos. 2 and 3 are hereby directed to deliver possession of the agreed flat situated at premises no.104/E, Aswini Nagar Colony, P.S. Jadavpur, Kolkata   measuring 760 sq.ft super built up area to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.

O.P-4 is directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant wherein O.P nos. 2 and 3 being partners of O.P-1 will stand as a confirming party ,failing which, complainant is at liberty to approach this Forum for registration of the said flat with the assistance of the machinery of the Forum.

The O.P nos. 2 and 3 is directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lacs jointly and/or severally to the complainant and at the same time the O.P-4 being the landlord is directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1 lac, if the landlady failed to execute the deed of conveyance within the stipulated period as direcrted above. It may be mentioned here that if the landlady is ready and willing to execute the deed of conveyance in faovur of the complainant in that event landlady is not responsible to pay any compensation whatsoever but O.P nos. 2 and 3 are directed to pay compensation as directed above along with cost of the case within the stipulated period of 30 days from this date, failing which complainant is at liberty to execute the order through this Forum.                                         

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the O.P through speed post and to the complainant free of cost.

 

 

 

Member                                                                                                                       President

 

Dictated and corrected by me

 

 

 

                        President

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The judgement in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

 

                                                                        Ordered

That the complaint case no. 274 of 2015 is allowed in exparte due to non-appearance of the O.P knowing existence of this case ,with cost of Rs.10,000/- which will be borne jointly and/or severally by the O.Ps.

The O.P nos. 2 and 3 are hereby directed to deliver possession of the agreed flat situated at premises no.104/E, Aswini Nagar Colony, P.S. Jadavpur, Kolkata   measuring 760 sq.ft super built up area to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.

O.P-4 is directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant wherein O.P nos. 2 and 3 being partners f O.P-1 will stand as a confirming party ,failing which, complainant is at liberty to approach this Forum for registration fo the said flat with the assistance of the machinery of the Forum.

The O.P nos. 2 and 3 is directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lacs jointly and/or severally to the complainant and at the same time the O.P-4 being the landlord is directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1 lac if the landlord failed to execute the deed of conveyance within the stipulated period as direcrted above. It may be mentioned here that if the landlady is ready and willing to execute the deed of conveyance in faovur of the complainant in that event landlord is not responsible to pay any compensation whatsoever but O.P nos. 2 and 3 are directed to pay compensation as directed above along with cost of the case within the stipulated period of 30 days from this date, failing which complainant is at liberty to execute the order through this Forum.                                         

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the O.P through speed post and to the complainant free of cost.

 

 

 

Member                                                                                                                       President