West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/394/2014

1. SHYAMAL GUHATHAKURTA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.SUBRATA GUPTA, Director of Uma Associates. - Opp.Party(s)

14 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , JUDGES’ COURT, ALIPORE KOLKATA-700 027

 

         C.C. CASE NO. _394  OF ___2014__

 

DATE OF FILING : 28.8.2014     DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  14.8.2015__

 

Present                        :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :    Mrs. Sharmi Basu & Jinjir Bhattacharya

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT             :   Shamal Guhathakurata of 9/3, Nabaliapara Road, Kolkata – 700 008.

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                            :   Subrata Gupta, Director of Uma Associates ,                                                         1/16A, Prince Golam Md. Shah Road, Kolkata – 95.

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

 

Mrs. Sharmi Basu, Member

            The instant case has been filed by the complainant under section  12 of the C.P Act, 1986 with allegation of deficiency in service against the O.Ps.

            In a nutshell the case of the complainant is that the complainant has entered into an agreement on 24.12.12. with the Director of Uma Associates for registration of a land and paid Rs.20,000/- as advance by cash out of total consideration of Rs.1,20,000/-. But after repeated requests of the complainant, the O.P did not execute and register the land in question and on 11.4.2014 he sent a letter to the O.P but all in vein. Therefore, the complainant has no other alternative but to come before this Forum for redressal of his dispute with the prayers as mentioned in the complaint petition.

            The O.P has appeared before this Forum through Ld. Advocate by filing written version. In the written version the O.P has denied all material allegations raised against him by the complainant and has prayed for dismissal of the case with cost. The O.P has inter alia stated that the complainant with the malafide intention suppressed the fact that he has not paid the balance consideration amount in installment and thus he violated the conditions of the said agreement dated 24.12.2012 .

            After scrutinizing four corners of the case following points are in limelight :

1.             Whether the complainant is a Consumer or not.
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps or not.
3. Whether the complainant is eligible to get relief as prayed for partly or fully.

 

 

                                                            Decision with reasons

            Point no.1: From the record it appears that the complainant paid Rs.20,000/- to the O.P towards registration of a land.          From Agreement dated 24.12.2012 para 2 it reveals that it is within that agreement that the complainant agreed to pay land development charges  on priority basis of the actual expenditure incurred by the developer. Therefore, this is a case where the registration of a development land is the subject matter.

            Here, it is pertinent to mention that in the land  mark Judgement against Lucknow Development Authority Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe that dispute regarding developed plot is under the purview of the C.P Act, 1986. Considering the above discussion, it is crystal clear that the complainant of the instant case is ‘Consumer’ and the O.P is a service provider as per provision of the C.P Act.

            Thus Point no.1 is discussed in favour of the complainant.

            The Point nos. 2 and 3 are discussed together for convenience.

            After scrutinizing vividly the complaint petition, written version and all other documents brought before this Forum and hearing the case of the complainant it is beyond doubt that the complainant entered into an agreement for purchasing a developed plot with the O.P and paid Rs.20,000/- out of total consideration of Rs. 1,20,000/-. But even after several verbal requests and subsequent  letter dated 11.4.2014  with request to register the deed of conveyance of the suit property in favour of the complainant , the O.P has not done the same. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that this inaction of the O.P amounts to deficiency in rendering services towards the complainant/consumer and O.P is duty bound to execute and register the deed of conveyance of the developed land in question in favour of the complainant.

            To decide whether the complainant is eligible to get compensation from the O.P following discussion is advanced . It is beyond doubt that when a person with intention to purchase a plot of land gave advance to some person , then he or she has expectation that the property in question should be registered in his or her name immediately. But in the instant case, the agreement was signed between the parties on 24.12.2012 but till date of hearing of the instant case registration of the plot in the name of the complainant has not been performed by the O.P. it is beyond doubt that it has  caused tremendous mental agony and financial loss . It is needless to be mentioned that the cost of land is increasing day by day considering the area where the land is situated. Therefore, the complainant is eligible to be compensated by the O.P .

            Thus point nos. 2 and 3 goes in favour of the complainant.

 

 

 

            Hence,

                                                                                    Ordered

That the case of the complainant is allowed on contest with cost .

The O.P is directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the plot of land in question within 30 days subject to payment of balance amount of consideration amount as per agreement dated 24.12.2012.

The O.P is directed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant within 30 days from this date.

The O.P is directed to comply all the orders within 30 days from this date, failing which, he has to pay Rs.50/- per diem  to the complainant till full compliance. 

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

 

Member                                                           Member                                                           President                                

Dictated and corrected by me

 

                        Member

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The judgement in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

                                                Ordered

That the case of the complainant is allowed on contest with cost .

The O.P is directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the plot of land in question within 30 days subject to payment of balance amount of consideration amount as per agreement dated 24.12.2012.

The O.P is directed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant within 30 days from this date.

The O.P is directed to comply all the orders within 30 days from this date, failing which, he has to pay Rs.50/- per diem  to the complainant till full compliance. 

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

 

Member                                                           Member