West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/160/2015

1. Smt.Dipu Gupta, D/O Late H.C. Roy - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Smt. Bulu Dhar, W/O Late Siba Prasad Dhar. - Opp.Party(s)

Sima Ghosh.

14 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , JUDGES’ COURT, ALIPORE KOLKATA-700 027

 

         C.C. CASE NO. _160_ OF ___2015_

 

DATE OF FILING : 31.3.2015                  DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: _14.8.2015___

 

Present                        :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :    Mrs. Sharmi Basu

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT             :   Smt. Dipu Gupta,d/o late H.C. Roy, E/31, Katzunagar, P.O & P.S Jadavpur, Kolkata – 32, and also at 2/46A, Azadgarh, P.O Regent Park, Kolkata- 40.

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                            :  1. Smt. Bulu Dhar,w/o late Siba Prasad Dhar

                                              2.  Sri Sishir Dhar,s/o late Siba Prasad Dhar

                                             3.   Sri Raju Dhar,s/oi latge Siba Prasad Dhar

                                             4.  Soma Dahr (Mazumder),d/o late S.P. Dhar

                                             5.  Mita Dhar (Dey), d/o late S.P.Dhar

                                             2/46A, Azadgarh, P.O Regent Park, Kolkata – 40.

________________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

 

Mrs. Sharmi Basu, Member

The instant case has been filed by the complainant under section  12 of the C.P Act, 1986 with allegation of deficiency in service against the O.Ps.

In a nutshell the case of the complainant is that she is a resident and owner of flat  at 2/46A, Azadgarh, P.O Regent Park, Kolkata – 40, 1st floor, Eastern side flat measuring more or less 200 sq.ft by virtue of purchase from the predecessor Siba Prasad Dhar of the O.Ps since August, 2003 after paying consideration money of Rs.1,40,000/- to Siba Prasad Dhar. Thereafter complainant took possession of the flat and she is now enjoying the flat ,though outside of the said flat plastering, color and other minor works are still to be completed. But inspite of several requests to Siba Prasad Dhar and his heirs ,the O.Ps, followed by three notices through Ld. Advocate dated 29.9.2014, 12.1.2015 and lastly on 25.2.2015, O.Ps failed and neglected to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the flat in favour of the complainant. Hence, this case, praying for execution and registration of Deed of Conveyance completion , plastering ,colouring and other unfinished works to be completed and compensation etc.

Inspite of valid service of notices upon all the O.ps and giving opportunity to file written version and to contest the case, they fought shy of entering appearance in this case and hence the case proceeded exparte against them.

After scrutinizing four corners of the case following points are in limelight :

1.  Whether the complainant is a “Consumer” or not.
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps or not.
3. Whether the complainant is eligible to get relief as prayed for partly or fully.

 

 

 

 

                                                            Decision with reasons

 

            All the points are taken together as they are interlinked.

            Before going into the merits of the case it is to be mentioned here that even after valid service of notice upon the O.Ps, O.P has not appeared before this Forum and it appears to us that the O.P is reluctant to proceed with the instant case before this Forum and this Forum has no other alternative but to adjudicate the case in absence of the O.Ps.

            All the documents brought before this Forum by the Complainant being unchallenged testimony has been considered as true.

            From the record it appears that complainant purchased a flat from the O.P developer paying full consideration money of the flat amounting to Rs.1,40,000/- to the predecessor of the O.Ps and she is in possession but inspite of several requests followed by three legal notices the O.Ps failed and neglected to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the suit flat in favour of the complainant and it is also submitted by the Ld. Advocate of the complainant that possession of the flat in question was handed over to the complainant in incomplete condition.

            It is settled principle of law that the developer is duty bound to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the purchaser in case of flat or plot. Moreover, as per jurisprudence of Law civil liability percolates to the legal heirs . Therefore, in the instant case , being legal heirs of deceased developer Siba Prasad Dhar  O.Ps could bit shirk off their liability from executing and registering the suit flat in the name of the complainant. But they have not done the same till the date of hearing of argument of the instant case.

            Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the O.Ps jointly and/or severally have committed deficiency in service to the complainant/consumer and they are duty bound to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the suit flat in the name of the complainant immediately.

            Regarding the prayer of the complainant for direction upon the O.Ps to complete the alleged unfinished works of the flat in question ,we cannot allow this prayer because in that regard complainant has not filed a scrap of paper or any other documental evidence to support the same.

            It is beyond doubt that due to the aforesaid deficiency in service  of the O.Ps, complainant has not only suffered mental agony and harassment but also to face financial loss as day by day the cost of the stamp duty is increased.

            Thus, all the points are discussed and all are in favour of the complainant. Therefore, the complaint case succeeds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

            Hence,

                                                                        Ordered

That  the case being C.C. no. 160 of 2015 be and the same is decreed exparte against the O.Ps with cost.

All the O.Ps are jointly and/or severally directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the flat in question in favour of the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order.

The O.Ps are jointly and/or severally directed to pay to the complainant Rs.70,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5000/- towards litigation cost within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which, the O.Ps jointly and/or severally will pay Rs.100/- per diem to the complainant till the date of full compliance of this order

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the parties free of cost.

 

 

 Member                                                          Member                                               President

 

 

Dictated and corrected by me

 

                        Member

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

.          

Ordered

That  the case being C.C. no. 160 of 2015 be and the same is decreed exparte against the O.Ps with cost.

All the O.Ps are jointly and/or severally directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the flat in question in favour of the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order.

The O.Ps are jointly and/or severally directed to pay to the complainant Rs.70,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5000/- towards litigation cost within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which, the O.Ps jointly and/or severally will pay Rs.100/- per diem to the complainant till the date of full compliance of this order

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the parties free of cost.

 

 

 Member                                                          Member                                               President