West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/89/2015

Md. Moinuddin Molla, S/O Late Md. Kultali. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Abdul Hannan Wars. S/O Late Md. Ayub. - Opp.Party(s)

Rizwan Ahmed.

28 May 2015

ORDER

      DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

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

 

C.C. CASE NO. _89_ OF ___2015_____

 

DATE OF FILING : 18.2.2015     DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  28.5.2015__

 

Present                        :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :    Mrs. Sharmi Basu

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT             :   Md. Moinuddin Molla, s/o late Md. Kultali                                                               of T-119/11, Murry Road, P.S. Metiabruz, now Rajabagan P.S. Kolkata - 18

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                            :    Abdul Hannan Warsi, s/o late Md. Ayub of  

T-119/11, Murry Road, P.S. Metiabruz, now Rajabagan P.S. Kolkata - 18

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

 

Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President                                    

            This is an application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986.

            The short story of the complainant is that O.P due to his personal reasons expressed his intention to sell the landed property in favour of the intending purchaser and upon such knowledge the complainant expressed his intention to purchase the said landed property and as such respondent handed over Xerox copy of the Deed of the landed property to the complainant for verification and searching about the title and after necessary search complainant was satisfied and upon negotiation consideration money was fixed at Rs.6 lacs and thereafter they entered into an agreement for sale on 10^th day of February, 2014 with some specific condition and complainant has paid a sum of Rs.4 lacs at the time of execution of aforesaid agreement on 10.2.2014 towards earnest money and the remaining amount will be paid at the time of registration of the Deed of Conveyance ,for which complainant requested the O.P to accept the balance amount of Rs.2 lacs . But the O.P always took time on a false pretext since the month of December and thereafter threatened the complainant by refusing the execution of deed of conveyance in a dire consequence. Hence, this case.

            Inspite of issuance of summon O.P failed and neglected to appear before this Forum and hence the case is running against him in exparte.

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

 

                                                            Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed examination in chief and documents i.e. agreement for sale ,wherein we find that O.P has accepted Rs.4 lacs out of Rs.6 lacs and also we find the Lawyer’s letter informing the O.P to execute the deed of conveyance. But the O.P refused to do the same.

            There is no evidence that the O.Ps are working as a builder. So, the O.P is seller simpliciter. It must be borne in mind that the sale of plot simpliciter is different from the plot sold by the builders or promoters . The Hon’ble Apex Court in a latest authority reported in “Ganesh Lal, s/o Motilal Vs. Shyam” in Civil Appeal no.331 of 2007 decided on 26.9.2013 and was pleased to hold that failure to hand over possession of the plot of land simpliciter cannot be termed within the jurisdiction of a District Consumer Forum , State Commission or a National Commission. Hon’ble Court also held that when it comes to “Housing Construction”  same has been specifically covered under the definition of service by amendment inserted by Act 50 of 1993 with effect from 18^th June 1993 .

            Thus even in exparte, we are sorry to consider this dispute  as a consumer dispute because transaction is for sale of plot of land which is a sale simpliciter.

            Accordingly, it is

                                                                        Ordered

That the application filed under section 12 of the C.P Act is dismissed exparte but liberty is given to the complainant to approach the appropriate Civil Court for redressal of his grievances.

So far as the limitation is concerned, he can seek help from the reported Judgement of Lakhi Engineering Works Vs. SPSG Industrial Institute.

Let a plain copy of this judgement be handed over to 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 filed under section 12 of the C.P Act is dismissed exparte but liberty is given to the complainant to approach the appropriate Civil Court for redressal of his grievances.

So far as the limitation is concerned, he can seek help from the reported Judgement of Lakhi Engineering Works Vs. SPSG Industrial Institute.

Let a plain copy of this judgement be handed over to the parties free of cost.

 

 

 

                                                            Member                                                           President