DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C. C. CASE NO. 78/2019
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
11.03.2019 26.03.2019 14.03.2022
Complainant/s:- | Madhumita Talukdar, W/o Uttam Kumar Talukdar of 84, Kabi Mukunda Das Road, 3 No. Rail Gate, Kolkata – 700065, P.S. – Dumdum. = Vs.= |
Opposite Party/s:- | - Achinta Kumar Ghosh
- Deb Prasad Ghosh
- Dr. Dwijendra Kumar Ghosh
All are son of Late Surendra Prasad Ghosh of 3 P.K. Guha Road, P.O. & P.S. Dum dum, Kolkata – 700028 - M/s. Fair Build, a proprietor firm of 14 R.B.C. Road, P.O. & P.S. Dumdum, Kolkata – 700028 having represented by Satya Gopal Saha, S/o. Sadananda Saha of “Maya Kunja”, 4/12/1 Hari Mohan Dutta Road, Green Park, P.O. & P.S. Dum Dum, Kolkata – 700028.
|
P R E S E N T :- Shri Debasis Mukhopadhyay…………President.
:- Smt. Monisha Shaw …………………. Member.
JUDGMENT / FINAL ORDER
This is a complaint case U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complaint case in brief is as follows:-
One agreement for sale of a garage was made and executed by and between the parties on 23/06/2002 and the Complainant has paid Rs. 70,000/- + Rs. 50,000/- total Rs. 1,20,000/- excess of Rs. 20,000/- out of total consideration on 23/06/2002. Thereafter, the Complainant further paid Rs. 20,000/- to the Opposite Party No. 4 on 18/09/2003 and the O.P. No. 4 verbally assured the Complainant that the excess amount of Rs. 40,000/- could be used at the time of registration. The Opposite Party delivered the possession of the said garage and the possession letter was also given. Now, the Opposite Parties are not ready to make registration of the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Complainant in respect of the garage No. G-2 on the ground floor measuring an area of 190 Sq. ft. The Complainant stated that this is unfair trade practice of O.P. No. 4 and silence procedure on the part of the O.P. No. 1 to 3 for non registration of garage. As the registration was not done in favour of the Complainant inspite of several request the Complainant filed this case praying for registration of the Deed of Conveyance in respect of the garage No. G-2 in the name of the Complainant by the O.Ps and for compensation and cost.
The Opposite Parties did not appear to contest the case inspite of service of summons. Accordingly, the case was heard ex – parte on the evidence of the Complainant.
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submitted that the Complainant is a Senior Citizen and the Opposite Parties inspite of receipt of the consideration money as agreed and even excess money beyond the agreement, have not been registering the garage in favour of the Complainant though possession was delivered. He prayed for an order, directing the Opposite Parties to register the garage in favour of the Complainant.
We have considered the contention of the Complainant and also the document filed by her. From the copy of the agreement filed by the Complainant, it is evident that there was agreement between M/s. Fair Build, represented by O.P. No. 4 as Developer and also the O.P. No. 1, 2 and 3 as Vendors with the employment regarding the subject garage No. G-2. The O.P. No. 4 as it appears from the copy of cash receipts accepted the money from the Complainant for selling the garage and he also delivered possession of the garage to the Complainant.
Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./-
: : 2 : :
C. C. CASE NO. 78/2019
Since, the O.P. No. 4 agreed also to execute the deed and register the garage in favour of the Complainant and accepted money as full consideration, therefore, he is now under an obligation to execute the deed and register the subject garage in favour of the Complainant. We find that the Complainant has proved her case by sufficient evidence and such evidence was not controverted by the Opposite Parties.
Therefore, in view of the evidence adduced by the Complainant uncontroverted by the Opposite Parties, we find that the case is proved by the Complainant who is entitled to get the relief of registration of the subject garage in her favour by the Opposite Parties. In the result, the case succeeds ex – parte.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case is allowed ex – parte against the Opposite Parties.
The O.P. No. 4 is directed to execute the deed and register the subject garage No. G-2 as mentioned in the scheduled of the complaint in favour of the Complainant at her cost within 02 (two) months from this date failing which the Complainant is at liberty to get the same executed and registered as per rules.
The Opposite Parties are also to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account within 02 (two) months from this date failing which the same shall be recovered as per law.
Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.
Dictated & Corrected by me
President
Member President
