DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,

 KOLKATA-700 0144

       C.C. CASE  NO. 129 OF 2018

Date of filing                Date of Admission                     Date of judgment

  19.11.2018                            22.11.2018                              16.06.2020

Present                  :   President     :   Asish Kumar Senapati

                                 Member(s)  : Jhunu Prasad  & Jagadish Ch. Barmn

COMPLAINANT   :   Sri Uttam Kumar Halder, son of Sri Tapan Halder of Vivekananda Nagar, Kamrabad North, P.O & P.S Sonarpur, Kolkata-150.

•  VERSUS  -

O.P/O.Ps                    :  1. Sri Jagadish Chandra Bag,son of late Bijoy Krishna Bag

                                    2.   Pijush Kanti Bag, son of Jagadish Ch. Bag

                                    3.   Pratima Bag,wife of Jagadish Ch.Bag

                                    4.  Sayantika Bag,@ Mitra ,wife of Pijush Kanti Bag

                                   All of Village & P.O Subhashgram, P.S Sonarpur, Kolkata- 147, Near Nabatara School Road, Loknath Mandir, Nabaday Sangha Club and permanent residing at Village & P.O Sitarampur, P.S Kulpi, South 24-Parganas, Pin-743351.  

Ld. Lawyer for the complainant    :    In  person

Ld. Lawyer for the O.Ps               :     None

__________________________________________________________

                                                J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

Sri Asish Kumar Sanapati , President

          This is a complaint under section 12  of the C.P Act, 1986.

          One Uttam Kumar Halder (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) filed the case against Sri Jagadish Chandra Bag and 3 others ( hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps) , praying for khas possession of the disputed property , alternatively for refund of Rs.13,80,000/- , compensation of Rs.6 lac and litigation cost of Rs.19,900/-,alleging deficiency in service.

The sums and substance of the complaint case is as follows:

    The complainant entered into an agreement with the O.P-1 for purchase of a flat dated 28.9.2018 on certain terms and conditions and the O.P. no. 1 executed a sale deed in favour of the complainant on 4.10.2018. The O.P-1 received Rs.10 lac in total from the complainant on different dates and he also executed receipt dated 4.10.2018. Inspite of registration of the flat in favour of the complainant, the O.P-1 and his son, wife and daughter ( O.P Nos. 2 to 4) did not hand over the flat to the complainant for a considerable time and the complainant compelled to file a number of cases against the O.Ps for getting physical possession of the disputed property. Hence, the complainant has filed the case, praying for reliefs against the O.Ps.

          The O.P nos. 1 to 4 did not turn up in spite of service of notice.

          The complainant filed evidence on 2.7.2019, stating that the O.Ps ultimately handed over possession of the disputed flat on 12.12.2018. The complainant prayed for compensation of Rs.6 lac and litigation cost of Rs.19,900/- against the O.Ps.

          This Forum delivered judgment on 20.3.2019 by dismissing the complaint.

          Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment of this Forum dated 20.3.2019 , the complainant preferred an appeal being No. A/314/2019  before the Hon’ble State Commission and the Hon’ble State Commission vide its order dated 28.5.2019 has been pleased to allow the appeal by remanding  the case to this Forum with a direction upon the appellant to appear before this Forum on 26.6.2019 and the Forum was requested to proceed with the case in accordance with law. The Hon’ble State Commission has been pleased to observe that the complainant alleged harassment and mental agony for non-delivery of the flat in question within the stipulated period and claimed compensation of Rs.6 lac on account of such harassment and mental agony , so, the Ld. District Forum should not have dismissed the complaint in limini without affording an opportunity to the appellant/complainant to prove his case.

          On 26.6.2019 the complainant filed a petition along with a copy of the order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission. Notice was issued upon the O.Ps but they did not turn up inspite of service of notice. The Ld. Advocate for the complainant filed written argument on 16.3.2020.

          Heard argument on behalf of the complainant.

                                      POINT FOR DECISION

          Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and litigation cost against the O.P ? . If so, what should the amount ?

DECISION WITH REASONS

            The complainant alleged that he paid Rs.10 lac to the O.P-1 as consideration for purchase of a flat and the O.P-1 executed the sale deed on 4.10.2018. The consideration amount as noted in the sale deed dated 4.10.2018 is Rs.9 lac but the O.P-1 executed a receipt dated 4.10.2018 , stating that he received Rs.10 lac as consideration from the complainant. It is evident from the evidence of the complainant dated 2.7.2019 (Para 10) that the O.Ps handed over the possession of the disputed flat on 12.12.2018 in terms of the compromise dated 11.12.2018.

 The Complainant submits that he suffered financially as he could not enjoy the flat during the period from 04.10.18 to 11.12.18 . aHe prays for compensation for mental pain and agony.

          It is true that the complainant had to overcome a number of litigations for getting peaceful possession of the disputed flat and he got possession of the flat after lapse of more than 2 months from the date of execution of the sale deed. Therefore, it is clear that the complainant could not enjoy the disputed flat for 67 days even after registration of the deed of purchase.

          In our considered opinion the complainant is entitled to get simple interest @8% p.a on Rs.10,000/- for the period from 4.10.2018 to 11.12.2018 amounting   Rs.18,356/ as compensation-. We also think that the complainant suffered mental agony and harassment and he had to overcome  a number of litigations for establishing his claim over the disputed flat  for which he is entitled to get compensation of Rs.15,000/-. Considering the period of litigation, we think that The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.5000/- as litigation cost.

          The point is thus disposed of.

          In the result, the complaint case succeeds.

 Fees paid are correct.

                     Hence,

ORDERED

             That the complaint case be and the same is hereby allowed exparte against the O.Ps with cost of Rs.5000/-.

            The complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.33,356/- and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- against the O.Ps.

           The O.Ps are directed to pay the compensation and litigation cost to the complainant by 60 days from the date of this order.  

             Registrar-In-Charge of this Forum is directed to deliver a copy of the judgment free of cost to the parties concerned. The final order will also be available in the website  confonet.nic.in.

Dictated and corrected by me

                         President

Member                                      Member                                           President