Sri Arjan Baran Guha S/O Late Indu Bhusan Guha. filed a consumer case on 07 Apr 2015 against 1. Shyamal Das, S/O Late Satish Chandra Das. in the South 24 Parganas Consumer Court. The case no is CC/33/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 07 Apr 2015.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , JUDGES’ COURT, ALIPORE KOLKATA-700 027
C.C. CASE NO. 33_ OF ___2015_____
DATE OF FILING : 19.1.2015_ DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:_7.4.2015__
Present : President : Udayan Mukhopadhyay
Member(s) : Dr. (Mrs.) Shibani Chakraborty
COMPLAINANT : 1. Sri Arjan Baran Guha,s/o late Indu Bhusan Guha
2. Smt. Munmun Guha,w/o Sri Arjan Baran Guha
23, Kalibari Road, Santoshpur, Kolkata-75
-VERSUS -
O.P/O.Ps : 1. Shyamal Das, s/o late Satish Chandra Das of 22, Lake Terrace, P.S. Purba Jadavpur, Kolkata – 75.
2. Sri Palash Das,s/o late Satish Chandra Das of 22, Lake Terrace, P.S. Purba Jadavpur, Kolkata – 75, at present 14, Kabi Sukanta 2nd Lane, East Rajpur, P.S. Purba Jadavpur, Kolkata -75.
3. Smt. Minati Das, d/o late Satish Chandra Das of 22, Lake Terrace, P.S. Purba Jadavpur, Kolkata – 75
4. Smt. Basanti Das, d/o late Satish Chandra Das of 22, Lake Terrace, P.S. Purba Jadavpur, Kolkata – 75
5. Sm. Sonali Das,d/o late Satish Chandra Das of 22, Lake Terrace, P.S. Purba Jadavpur, Kolkata – 75
6. Sri Subhasis Basu Chowdhury s/o late Sisir Kumar Basu Chowdhury , M/s Relation of 22, Lake Terrace, P.S. Purba Jadavpur, Kolkata – 75 ,formerly residing at 90, Avenue South, P.S. Purba Jadavpur,Kolkata – 75.
________________________________________________________________________
J U D G E M E N T
Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President
This is an application under section 12 of the C.P Act filed by the complainant on the ground that he entered into an agreement for sale on 4.1.2004 with the O.P -6 who is the Constituted Attorney of O.P nos. 1 to 5 . It has claimed that O.P nos. 1 to 5 being a legal heir of Satish Chandra Das are the absolute owners of the suit property and the total consideration money of the suit property is Rs.6,30,000/- and out of the said sum complainant has paid Rs.3,92000/- and remaining amount is Rs.2,38,000/-. It has stated that although the flat has already been handed over to the complainant but the same is in incomplete condition which has been agreed by M/s Relations i.e. O.P-6 in his letter dated 4.5.2009. and the O.P-6 also stated in that letter that “ you construct rest portion of the aforesaid flat from the rest amount”. Thus we find that developers O.P-6 has no objection if the flat which is already given possession to the complainant be completed with the rest amount. The owners of the land i.e. O.P nos. 1 to 4 are not contesting the case.
In this circumstances it can be safely presumed that the O.P-6 although has agreed that the rest amount may be utilized for completion of the flat , still then they made deficiency in service along with other O.Ps.
None of the O.Ps appear inspite of service of notice. Hence the case proceeded exparte.
Decision with reasons
We have nothing to disbelieve the documentary evidence along with the approval of the developer O.P-6 as well as the possession of the flat of the complainant in incomplete condition, which we have stated above. But fact remains that inspite of sending summon O.P nos. 1 to 4 , land owners, are very much reluctant to execute and register the deed of conveyance. Thus, all the O.Ps have made deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Hence,
Ordered
That the application under section 12 of the C.P Act is allowed in exparte against the O.Ps.
The O.P nos. 1 to 5 are directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant in respect of the flat mentioned in the schedule positively within 45 days from the date of this order, wherein the O.p-6 is directed to stand as Confirming Party ,failing which, the complainants are at liberty to approach the Forum and to get the deed of conveyance registered through the machinery of the Forum.
The O.P nos. 1 to 5 is liable to pay compensation of Rs.25000/- to the complainant because they are very much reluctant to execute and register the deed of conveyance and O.p-6 is directed to pay Rs.5000/- towards litigation cost within the stipulated period, failing which, the complainant is at liberty to execute the order through this Forum.
It may be mentioned here that at the time of argument Ld. Advocate of the complainant has pointed out that O.P nos. 1 to 5 may raise objection for the incomplete work of their flat. Accordingly , Officer-In-Charge of Survey Park P.S is directed to see that the incomplete work may be completed by the complainant at their own cost peacefully and none will raise objection in the mater of construction through mason and labours who should get free ingress and egress over the said flat for completion of the incomplete work . Any departure in the matter may be reported if situation is so warranted.
Let a plain copy of this order be sent to the O.P through speed post from this Forum positively for strict compliance and another free copy of the order be given to the complainant for his doing the needful in the matter.
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 application under section 12 of the C.P Act is allowed in exparte against the O.Ps.
The O.P nos. 1 to 5 are directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant in respect of the flat mentioned in the schedule positively within 45 days from the date of this order, wherein the O.p-6 is directed to stand as Confirming Party ,failing which, the complainants are at liberty to approach the Forum and to get the deed of conveyance registered through the machinery of the Forum.
The O.P nos. 1 to 5 is liable to pay compensation of Rs.25000/- to the complainant because they are very much reluctant to execute and register the deed of conveyance and O.p-6 is directed to pay Rs.5000/- towards litigation cost within the stipulated period, failing which, the complainant is at liberty to execute the order through this Forum.
It may be mentioned here that at the time of argument Ld. Advocate of the complainant has pointed out that O.P nos. 1 to 5 may raise objection for the incomplete work of their flat. Accordingly , Officer-In-Charge of Survey Park P.S is directed to see that the incomplete work may be completed by the complainant at their own cost peacefully and none will raise objection in the mater of construction through mason and labours who should get free ingress and egress over the said flat for completion of the incomplete work . Any departure in the matter may be reported if situation is so warranted.
Let a plain copy of this order be sent to the O.P through speed post from this Forum positively for strict compliance and another free copy of the order be given to the complainant for his doing the needful in the matter.
Member President
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.