19…..07.12.2021…..
The Ld. Advocate for the OP Nos 2& 3are present.
Today is fixed for delivery of final order . Final order containing 6 pages is ready. It is sealed, signed and delivered in open Commission.
It is ordered that,
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is dismissed.
No order as to cost.
Let a copy of the order be supplied free of cost to the parties concerned. Final order will also be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in .
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SOUTH 24-PARGANAS
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 144
C.C.NO. 176 OF 2019
DATE OF FILING DATE OF ADMISSION DATE OF FINAL ORDER
30.09.2019 23.10.2019 /12/2021
Present : President : Asish Kumar Senapati
Member : Jagdish Chandra Barman
Member : Sangita Paul
COMPLAINANT : 1. Sri Kuntal Roy, S/o – Sri Samar Roy,
Residing at Nungi Gumo Shawpara,
Post – Bata Nagar, P.S. – Maheshtala,
Dist. – 24 Parganas (South)
Versus
O.P/O.Ps :1. Sri Krishnendu Roy, S/o. Sri Swapan Roy, Residing at Parbangla, P.S. – Maheshtala, Dist. – 24 Parganas (South)
2. Sri Asit Mondal, S/o. Late Basudeb Mondal,
Residing at E.S.I. Quarters, 3/5, P.S. – Maheshtala, Kolkata-700 131, Dist. – 24 Parganas (South)
Smt. Sangita Paul, Member
This is a case filed by Sri Kuntal Roy, S/o. Sri Samar Roy with a direction to the O.Ps. to register the plot of Lot-E in favour of complainant after receiving the balance of consideration and to pay damage for causing mental tension and agony and to pass an interim order restraining the O.Ps. from selling / transferring the subject plot till the disposal of the instant application.
Sri Krishnendu Roy, S/o. Sri Swapan Roy is the developer who entered into an agreement with the purchaser of land, Mr. Batakrishna Dhawa. Mr. krishnendu Roy is referred to as the O.P. No.1. Mr. Asit Mondal, S/o. of Late Basudeb Mondal is another developer who alongwith Mr. Krishnendu Roy, herein referred to as O.P. No.1 would develop the land. Mr. Asit Mondal is referred to as O.P. No.2, Mr. Batakrishna Dhawa, S/o. Late Ramlal Dhawa is the owner of the land. O.P. No.1 is supposed to purchase the land from Mr. Batakrishna Dhawa, also is referred to as O.P. No.3.
Complainant by filing the case states that complainant entered into an agreement on 30.05.2019 with Developer No.1 for purchasing two Cottahs of land, Lot No.-E of the scheme of plots in L.R. Khatian No-2011, Dag No-631, the Ward No-31 of the Maheshtala Municipality.
It was agreed in the presence of the other developer and the owner that the developers would develop the land which is a marshy land and then sell it to the complainant.
The O.Ps. have assured that they would construct boundary wall and they would execute a deed of sale, in favour of complainant at a consideration of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Laks) only. The value of land is Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) only per cottah.
Complainant paid Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) to the developers and admitted to pay balance of consideration at the time of registration. Complainant states that the buyers are coming to the developers and the owner for purchasing the said plot of land.
On 31.08.2019, complainant requested O.P. No. 2 & 3 to execute the Deed of Conveyance, when the owner was present. O.P. No.3 demanded Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand) only for constructing the boundary wall. On 09.09.2019, complainant paid Rs.25,000/- only in cash but the owner refused to issue a receipt.
O.Ps. informed complainant that the Sale Deed would be executed very soon but complainant apprehends that the O.Ps. may transfer the land to the third party as they were showing the land to different buyers. The O.Ps. are required to be restrained from selling the land to the 3rd party. Complainant stated that it is an illegal trade practice.
The cause of action arose on 31.08.2019 and also on 09.09.2019. Hence, complainant prays for an order directing the O.Ps to register the said plot of land in favour of complainant after receiving the balance of consideration and for paying compensation for mental tension and agony. Complainant also prays for an interim order restraining the O.Ps. from selling / transferring the property till the disposal of the case.
O.P. No.2, the developer states that the complainant has no cause of action for the present case. That the case is false, speculative, harassing.
Complainant entered into an agreement with Developer No. 1 for purchasing 2 cottahs of land worth Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs) only. Complainant paid Rs.25,000/- to the O.P. No.3 on 09.09.2019. But complainant failed to get any receipt against the deposited amount. The O.Ps. are delaying the matter in spite of expiry of 3 months from the date of agreement.
O.P. No.2 states that the agreement dated 30.05.2019 is false and has been manufactured by complainant for the purpose of this case. Complainant used O.P. No.1 to fulfill his wrongful gain.
Complainant is not a consumer and there is no unfair trade practice. As a result, the case is not maintainable against O.P. No.2. So, the case be dismissed with cost.
O.P. No.3 in the written version states that the complainant has no cause of action for the present case. He states that the complaint is false, frivolous, speculative and harassing. Complainant has no local standi to file the case. O.P. No.3 states that the alleged agreement between complainant and O.P. No.1 is false and manufactured. The agreement was made keeping O.P. No.3 in complete dark. Further O.P. No.3 is not a signatory to the alleged sale agreement. Complainant used O.P. No.1 to achieve the wrongful gain. O.P. No.1 is unwilling to contest the case. Complainant is not a consumer. There is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint is not at all maintainable against O.P. No.3. So, the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
Notice was sent to the O.Ps. O.Ps. received the notice and contested the case.
Points of discussion :
- Is the complainant a consumer ?
- Is the O.P. guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for ?
Decision with Reasons :
On perusal of existing records and documents it appears that complainant intended to buy a plot of land. So he entered into an agreement with two developers, herein referred to as O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 and the owner of the land referred to as O.P. No.3. The date of agreement was 30.05.2019. It was a plot of 2 cottahs. Viz. Lot No.-E of the scheme of the plots in LR Khatian No.2011, Dag No.631, Ward no.31 of Maheshtala Municipality.
It was agreed between complainant and the O.Ps. (developers – O.Ps. 1 and 2 and owner – O.P. No.3) that the developers would develop the land and sell it to complainant. The O.Ps. assured that the said property would be filled with soil and a boundary wall would be constructed. The value of the said property is Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs) only i.e. Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) only per cottah.
As per complainant’s version, complainant paid Rs.5,000/- to the Developers and promised to pay the balance amount at the time of registration. As per written version of O.P. No.2, complainant also paid Rs.25,000/- only to the owner i.e. O.P. no.3 for constructing the boundary wall, around the subject property. In the Affidavit-in-Chief, complainant admitted the fact. Yet complainant failed to produce a scrap of paper as money receipt which would support his statement. As there is no money receipt, it appears that there was no monetary transaction between complainant and the O.Ps. 1, 2 and 3. As a result, complainant ceases to be a consumer. As per Section 2(7)(i) of C.P. Act 2019, consumer is a person who buys goods for a consideration which has been paid on promised or partly paid or partly promised and under any system of deferred payment. As there is no money receipt, it is hard to believe that he is a consumer.
O.P. No.1 and 2 are the developers and O.P. No.3 is the owner. Complainant is utterly deprived by the OPs. By giving a false assurance, the O.Ps. entered into an agreement with complainant. Complainant case to purchase the land in clean hands. He entered into an agreement with the O.Ps. on 30.05.2019. After the expiration of the 3 months, the O.Ps. did not take any step. Neither they filled the land properly nor they handed over the land to complainant. Complainant enquired but with no result. They did not give any money receipt to complainant. The O.Ps failed to take any step after the extension of the date of agreement i.e. upto 26.10.2019.
The cherished hope of having a sweet home has been totally shattered, complainant failed to produce any money receipt of the payment which he made to the O.Ps. So, he is not entitled to any relief.
In the result, complaint fails.
Fees paid are correct.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is dismissed.
No order as to cost.
Let a copy of the order be supplied free of cost to the parties concerned. Final order will also be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in .
Dictated and corrected by me
Member
