DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS ,
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. _459_ OF ___2015_
DATE OF FILING : _14.10.2015_ DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 09/06/2017
Present President : Udayan Mukhopadhyay
Member(s) : Jhunu Prasad & Subrata Sarker
COMPLAINANT : 1. Mr. Tarun Kanti Laskar,s/o late Adhir Chandra Laskar.
2. Mrs. Bulbul Laskar, w/o Mr. Tarun Kanti Laskar
Both of Village-Sitakundu, P.O Sitakundu, P.S. Baruipur,Kol-144.
-VERSUS -
O.P/O.Ps : 1. Sri Uttam Kumar Debnath,s/o Sri Tarun Chandra Debnath
2. Sri Utpal Kumar Debnath ,s/o Sri Tarun Chandra Debnath
3. Sri Tarun Chandra Debnath,s/o late Chandra Sekhar Debnath
4. Smt. Monika Debnath,w/o Sri Tarun Ch. Debnath
All residing at Khiristala “Usha Bhaban” P.O Sonarpur, P.S. Sonarpur, Dist. South 24-Parganas.
5. M/s R.P Construction at Sushila Shopping Complex, (LIC Building) , Sonarpur Station Road, P.S. Sonarpur, Kolkata-150.
6. Sri Ranjan Kanti Deb,s/o late Khitish Chandra Deb, one of the Partners of M/s R.P Construction, residence of 101 R.K Pally,P.O Sonarpur, P.S Sonarpur, Kolkata – 150.
7. Sri Pradip Dutta, s/o Sri Balaram Dutta, one of the partners of M/s R.P Construction , of 183, R.K Pally, P.O Sonarpur, P.S Sonarpur, Kolkata – 150.
______________________________________________________________________
J U D G E M E N T
Jhunu Prasad, Lady Member
Filtering out the unnecessary details in the complaint, the complainants’ case may be summarized thus :-
In Succinct, the case stated in the complaint, is that the complainants had entered into an agreement for sale with the OP.No. 6 & 7 measuring about more or less 1050 sq.ft. 4th floor South West of the building on 2.8.2012 namely “ RADHAKRISHNA APARTMENT” holding No. 202 ward No. 8 within Rajpur – Sonarpur municipality Mouza – Tegharia ,P.S. Sonarpur , Kolkata-700150. Accordingly full consideration money of Rs. 25,00,000/- was paid in different dates. But before execution of the said agreement for sale dated on 02.08.2012 the complainant requested the OP. No 6 & 7 to insert latest infrastructure like AC point, wiring, Acqua guard, Gezer,Inverter,collapsible, Grill, colouring inside the total flat, in “Specification column” and the OP.No.6 & 7 agreed on the above request .
As per the terms of payment of schedule of the said agreement for sale the complainant although paid total consideration amount of Rs. 25,00,000/-and the opposite party no.6 and 7 are required to be handed over the above mentioned flat in question in September 2013 in favour of the complainants . But at the time of inspection of the work of the flat in question the complainants noticed that the construction of the said flat was not yet been completed and immediately the complainants requested by sending several letters to the OPs. to complete the incomplete work, but the O.Ps did not pay any heed to complete the said flat in question. Moreover the O.P.No. 6 & 7 demanded balance consideration money to complete the incomplete work of the said flat.
In spite of receipt of the full consideration amount and several letters have been sent by the complainants regarding incomplete work as well as work of “specific Column”, of the flat in question the O.Ps did not do anything.
In reply of the said letter sent by the complainants the O.Ps assured that they will complete the incomplete work of the said flat and issue possession letter and completion certificate, but they did not bother to do anything.
On 09.12.2013 at the time of registration at registry office the O.Ps demanded Rs.77,000/- towards service tax and accordingly the complainants paid the same by cheque being No. 9990302 . On same day i.e. 09.12.2013 the O.Ps issued possession letter and completion certificate in favour of the complainants and assured that pending work of the said flat will be completed as early as possible.
Thereafter the O.P again demanded 50,000/- for installation of DG power back up & grill which has not been mentioned in the “specific column”. Accordingly the complainants also paid the same by cheque being No 990303 dated 01.09.2014. But the O.P ignored to issue money receipt of the said amount of Rs.50,000/-.
Inspite of several requests made by the complainants, the O.P did not issue proper service tax bill. Having no other alternative way the complainants gave instruction to the bank to ‘Stop Payment’ in respect of the said cheque being No.990302 amounting to Rs.77,000/-.
Thereafter the complainants on several times wrote letters to the O.P to complete the incomplete work as mentioned in the “Agreement for sale”. Moreover the OP.No.6 & 7 demanded Rs.1,46,105/- to complete the incomplete the work of the said flat in question. But the complainant denied to pay the same and requested to return the amount of Rs.77,000/-.
After several letters sent by the complainants to the O.Ps, the O.Ps registered the said flat on 09.12.2013 and physical possession has been handed over on 11.12.2013 in favour of the complainants, but incomplete work is still pending and completion certificate has not yet been given to the complainants.
Having no other alternative the complainants filed this complaint for getting relief as prayed for.
Issue notices upon the Ops.
Resisting the complaint the O.Ps filed written version denying contentions and all material allegations, made by the complainants in the petition of complaint by stating inter alia that the complainants are not a consumer and has no locus standi to file the complaint and the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties.
In the written version filed by the OP.No.6 & 7,they admitted that the complainants entered into an “Agreement for Sale” with the OP. No. 6 & 7 on 02.08.2012 as describe in the second schedule of the said “Agreement for Sale”.
In written version filed by the O.P No.6 & 7, they stated that the complainant alleged that installation of AC point and wiring, aqua Guard, Geyser, Inverter, collapsible Grill, colouring inside the flat have not been included in the “specification column” of the finally concluded “Agreement for Sale” dated 02.08.2012, but the complainants did not produce any scrap of paper.
In written version filed by the OP. No 6 & 7stated that they informed the petitioner that due to paucity of fund they demanded balance consideration money as alleged by the OP.NO.6 & 7 with the assurance that after receiving the balance consideration money they will complete the alleged unfinished works of the flat in question.
In written version filed by the O.ps also stated that possession of the said flat has been delivered on 09.12.2013 to the complainant and the O.Ps registered the said flat in question in favour of the complainants and the complainant paid Rs.15,80,000/- against SBI, Boral Branch dated 09.12.2013 in favour of the O.ps and complainants received possession certificate without any objection.
POINTS FOR DECISION:-
1) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS:-
At the time of argument the complainants and O.Ps filed affidavit- in chief, BNA and some Xerox copies of documents to support of their claim.
All points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience and brevity.
We have carefully considered and scrutinized the submission made before us by the Ld. Advocate of the complainants and the O.Ps and critical appreciation of the case record, it is evident that one “Agreement for Sale” was executed by and between the complainants and the O.P.No.6 & 7 on 02.08.2012 for purchasing a self contained residential flat, measuring about more or less 1050 sq.ft. 4th floor S.W. of the building on 2.8.2012 namely “RADHAKRISHNA APARTMENT” holding No. 202 ward No. 8 within Rajpur – Sonarpur municipality Mouza – Tegharia ,P.S. Sonarpur Kolkata-700150. Accordingly full consideration money of Rs. 25,00,000/- was paid in different dates. The complainants also prayed of Rs. 5,00,000/- for loss of reputation and Rs. 5,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony and Rs.30,000/- for litigation cost.
Section 11 of the C.P. Act 1986 has clearly described the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum as value of goods or services and compensation should not exceed Rs.20,00,000/-.
Here in this case as pointed out by the complainants in his complaint, the value of the flat is Rs.25,00,000/- along with Rs.10,30,000/- as other compensation, and thus total value of the complaint is arrived at Rs.35,30,000/- which exceeds the pecuniary limits of this Forum. We should keep in mind that for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction we should consider the value of goods or services (here the value of the flat) and the compensation claimed which crossed the limit of pecuniary jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the instant complaint is barred under pecuniary limits and the complaint is not maintainable, barred under pecuniary jurisdiction.
Therefore, we declined to decide the complaint on merit and kept open to be decided by the appropriate Forum.
Hence,
It is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. But considering the facts and circumstances, liberty is given to the complainants to file the complaint before the appropriate Forum.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied for.
Member Member President
Dictated and corrected by me
Member
The judgment in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. But considering the facts and circumstances, liberty is given to the complainants to file the complaint before the appropriate Forum.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied for.
Member Member President
