West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/297/2015

Sri Debasis Das, S/O Harish Chandra Das. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Sri Kajal Kanti Das, S/O Late Sukhoranjan Das. - Opp.Party(s)

Madan Mohan Das.

05 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

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

 

      C.C. CASE NO. _297_ OF ___2015__

 

DATE OF FILING : 22.6..2015                    DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  5.11.2015__

 

Present                        :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :    Mrs. Sharmi Basu

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT             : Sri Debasis Das, s/o Harish Chandra Das of A/174, Baghajatin Colony, “Binapani”, 1^st Floor, P.S. Jadavpur, now Netaji Nagar, Kolkata – 92.

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                            :  1. Sri Kajal Kanti Das, s/o late Sukhoranjan Das , A/174, Baghajatin Colony, “Binapani”, 1^st Floor, P.S. Jadavpur, now Netaji Nagar, Kolkata – 92.

                                             2.  Sri Somenath Naskar,s/o late Rabin Naskar , Ramchandrapur Kabardanga Mission , P.O R.C. Thakurani, P.S. Thakurpukur, Kol-82
 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

 

Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President          

The short of the complainant is that he made an agreement with the O.P for purchasing a flat on 29.9.2008 measuring 810 sq.ft super built up area with a consideration of Rs.9,72,000/- and accordingly complainant has paid full consideration money and already got the delivery of possession of the said flat on 25.10.2009. But inspite of several requests registration was not completed. Hence, this case.

Be it mentioned here that O.P-1 is the land owner  and O.P-2 is the developer. The O.P-1 inspite of servicing summon is very much reluctant to contest the case ,for which the case is running against him exparte.

But O.P-2 developer has appeared and filed written version and the positive case of the O.P-2 is that he has taken entire money from the intending purchaser including the complainant in respect of the developer’s allocation and also handed over possession of the respective flat to the complainant and other buyers . But O.P-1 suddenly without any reason for giving trouble revoked the power of attorney which is completely unethical in the eye of Law ,for which, he is unable to register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant. But he is always ready and willing to execute and register the deed of conveyance and agreed to discharge his liability as a developer  , but he is helpless due to O.P-1 landlord and prays for passing necessary order keeping in mind that he is ready and willing to discharge his liability if the Ld. Court give any direction upon him.

Point for decision in this case is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps or not.

                                                Decision with reasons

At the very outset it must be stated that complainant already got possession after payment of full consideration money. But from the written version of the O.P-2 it has come to our knowledge that Power of attorney already revoked by the land owner, that is why O.P-2 although ready and willing to stand as a confirming party or as per direction of the Ld. Court but failed to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant.

The O.P-1, the land owner, is not contesting the case for the reasons that he has nothing to say in this regard and we find that total deficiency in service casted upon the land owner because he has revoked the power of attorney which was given to the O.P-1 ,developer. If the developer had or has any laches , then definitely they will not appear and file written version in this regard. Thus we find that entire responsibility casted upon the land owner because inspite of execution of development agreement with the developer, he is the man, without finality of the development agreement i.e. not only delivery of possession but also execution and registration of the deed of conveyance , revoked the power of attorney  ,that is why, the developer delivered possession but unable to execute and register the deed of conveyance . So, we find sheer negligence on the part of the land owner and knowing fully well he is not contesting the case. But developer ought to have informed the complainant in this regard and file legal steps against the land owner in this regard, because his liability was to see that deed of conveyance is obtained by the intending purchaser . So, partial deficiency cannot be brushed aside by the O.P-2.

With that observation it is,

                                                                        Ordered

That the application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 is allowed on contest against O.P-2 and exparte against O.P-1 .

It is hereby directed to the O.P-1 to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the flat in favour of the complainant within 30 days from this date ,failing which complainant is at liberty to approach before this Forum to appoint machinery of the Forum for registration and in that even O.P-2 is directed to stand as a confirming party in the deed of conveyance.

The O.P-1 is directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lacs because due to his delayed revocation of the power of attorney the price of the stamp duty and registration has already been in hike and complainant is suffering for this harassment and O.P-2 is also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- because he is partially negligent as stated above .

Both the O.Ps are directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.5000/- jointly and/or severally within one month from this date.

If the O.Ps fail to comply the above direction in toto, then complainant will execute the order of this Forum in a separate proceedings.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the parties 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 application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 is allowed on contest against O.P-2 and exparte against O.P-1 .

It is hereby directed to the O.P-1 to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the flat in favour of the complainant within 30 days from this date ,failing which complainant is at liberty to approach before this Forum to appoint machinery of the Forum for registration and in that even O.P-2 is directed to stand as a confirming party in the deed of conveyance.

The O.P-1 is directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lacs because due to his delayed revocation of the power of attorney the price of the stamp duty and registration has already been in hike and complainant is suffering for this harassment and O.P-2 is also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- because he is partially negligent as stated above .

Both the O.Ps are directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.5000/- jointly and/or severally within one month from this date.

If the O.Ps fail to comply the above direction in toto, then complainant will execute the order of this Forum in a separate proceedings.

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

 

 

 

Member                                                                                                                       President