DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,

 KOLKATA-700 0144

      C.C. CASE  NO. __25 _ OF ___2017

DATE OF FILING :_3.4.2014                DATE OF  JUDGEMENT:  17.4.2019

Present                 :   President       :   Ananta Kumar Kapri

                                 Member(s)    :    Jhunu Prasad

COMPLAINANT   :   Smt. Ranu Ghosh, wife of Sri Pradip Kumar Ghosh of Village- Noapara (Baishali), P.O & P.S Sonarpur, Kolkata-150.

•  VERSUS  -

O.P/O.Ps                    :  1. Sri Ram Chandra Show, son of Kapil Show, sole proprietor of Sarada Construction of East Baidya Para, P.O & P.S Sonarpur, Kolkata-150.

                                     2.    Smt. Baishali Ghosh, wife of Sri Tapan Ghosh of Sarada Complex, Rajpur, P.S Sonarpur, Kolkata-149.

                                     3.   Smt. Piyali Mukherjee (Basu), wife of Sri Abhijit Basu of East Baidya Para, P.O & P.S Sonarpur, Kolkata-150.

_________________________________________________________________

                                                J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

Sri Ananta Kumar  Kapri, President

            Facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follows.

           O.P-1 is the developer; O.P nos. 2 and 3 are the land owners. One sale agreement was effected on 6.1.2012 between the O.P-1 and the complainant and thereby O.P-1 agreed to sell a self contained residential flat as succinctly described in schedule C to the complaint to the complainant for a total consideration price of Rs.12,50,000/- . Complainant has paid Rs.12,30,000/- to the developer in different phases. But, the developer has not delivered the possession of the flat , nor has he executed and registered the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant in terms of the agreement. Therefore, the complainant has filed the instant case ,praying for passing an order directing the O.Ps to register a deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant and also to deliver possession of the flat to the complainant along with payment of compensation etc. Hence, the case.

          The O.P-1 developer entered into appearance in this case; but he has not filed any written statement to contest the case. O.P nos. 2 and 3 have not turned up to contest the case inspite of service of notice by way of publication in the newspaper. This being so, the case proceeds exparte against all the O.Ps.

            Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.

POINT FOR DETERMINATION

1. Are the O.Ps guilty of  deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
2. Is the complainant  entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?

EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES

           The complainant led evidence on affidavit. BNA filed by the complainant is kept in the record after consideration.

DECISION WITH REASONS

Point no.1 , 2 :

          It is in the evidence of the complainant that the O.P-1 executed a sale agreement dated 6.1.2012 and that he agreed to sell a self contained flat to her for a total consideration price of Rs.12,50,000/-. It is also in her evidence that she has paid Rs.12,30,000/- to O.P-1 and inspite of such payment, the O.P-1 has neither delivered possession of the flat to her nor he has executed the sale deed in favour of her with respect to the flat.

         The complainant has filed some receipts on record and it is gathered from those receipts that she has actually paid Rs.12,30,000/- to O.P-1 towards consideration money of the flat of her. A perusal of the sale agreement dated 6.1.2012 also reveals that there is a clause ,vide page 2 of the said agreement, to the effect that the O.P-1 will execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant within the month of November, 2012 provided the complainant makes payment of the consideration money.

         Now, it stands established on record that the complainant has paid the consideration price almost entirely i.e Rs.12,30,000/-. But, the developer has not delivered the possession of the flat to the complainant, nor has he executed and registered the deed of conveyance in her favour. Delay to execute and register the deed of conveyance  also to deliver possession of the flat in favour of the complainant is a glaring instance of deficiency in service on the part of the O.P developer and other O.Ps. The complainant is, therefore, deemed to be entitled to relief or reliefs as prayed for by her.

         In the result, the case succeeds.

         Hence,

                                                      ORDERED

            That the complaint case be and the same is decreed on contest against the O.Ps  with a cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid particularly by the O.P-1.

           All the O.Ps  and particularly O.P-1 are directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance with respect to the subject flat  and also to deliver possession thereof  in favour of the complainant within a month of this order, failing which, the complainant is at liberty to execute the order with the help of the machinery of the Forum. But, before the registration, the complainant must pay or deposit the balance consideration price i.e Rs.20,000/- either to O.p-1 or in the Forum.

          At the same time, O.P-1 i.e the developer is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainants for loss , harassment and mental agony sustained by her within a month of this order, failing which the compensation amount and the cost amount as referred to above will bear interest @10% p.a till full realization thereof.  

             Registrar-In-Charge of this Forum is directed to deliver a copy of the judgment free of cost to the parties concerned.

                                                                                                                   President

I / We agree

                                                          Member

          Dictated and corrected by me

                           President