West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/523/2014

Sankar Das, S/O. Late Pannalal Das, C/O The Water Side. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bablu Gayen, S/O Sarat Gayen. - Opp.Party(s)

16 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

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

 

C.C. CASE NO. _523_ OF ___2014___

 

DATE OF FILING : 29.10.2014     DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  15.7.2015__

 

Present                        :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

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

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT             : Sankar Das, s/o late Pannalal Das, C/o The Water Side of Flat no.4C, Block-C, 170F, Nilgunge Road, P.O Panihati, Kolkata – 114.

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                            : Bablu Gayen, s/o Sarat Gayen of N.S. Road, Rathtalla, P.O Narendrapur, Kolkata – 103, Dist. South 24-Parganas.

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

 

Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President           

The short case of the complainant is that he is a owner of the land measuring 2 cottah 12 chittak 11 sq.ft standing in R.S Dag no.72, R.S. Khatian No.399, J.L. No.55, Mouza-Rajpur, Pargana Medanmolla, ADSR at Sonarpur ,in the District of South 24-Parganas , Holding no.39, Ward no.24 of Rajpur Sonarpur Municipality being residential building consisting of one big bedx room attached with kitchen, Varandah and dining room and boundary wall at the western side, aspestos cover one garage with three adjacent brick built rooms with roof alonbg with hand pump installed therein, one safety chamberwith two toilets etc. It has further stated that the O.P being a developer made a proposal to develop the said land by construcgting multi-storied building there with duly sanctioned plan from the concerned Municipality and complainant accepted the said proposal of development and construction of the land and entered into a joint venture agreement on 25^th DEvcember, 2007 and vacated and deliver possession of the land along with structure thereon to the O.P with a permission to stock building materials within the said land and property of the petitioner for protection of the same within the campus of the said land of the complainant. It has further stated that one general Power of Attorney was also registered with the Registrar of Assurance on 25.12.2007 . It has stated that O.P was agreed for arrangement of rented house by paying of shifting charges and the first party shall stay in the said rented hosue if developer arranges to allow and complete the flat of the said property. Accordingly complainant vacated the said land and premises and received a sum of Rs. 1 lacs a an advance on account of shifting charges for one and half year i.e. January 2008 to 2009 and developer took physical possession of the said property by way of putting their lock and key. It has alleged that O.P did not pay any shifting charges from July 2009 to 2014 amounting to Rs.5 lacs @ Rs.1 lac per year. But the O.P already demolished the entire property of the complainant ,for which complainant suffered total loss to the tune of Rs.2,95,000/- and also sustained further loss of rent @Rs.600/- per month totaling to Rs.1,42,200/-  upto July, 2014 and also sustained loss of garage rent Rs.800/- per month total amount Rs.63,200/- . The complainant all along requested to start construction to O.P but one after another plea the O.P took time. Thereafter advocate’s notivce was served for the damagfe of Rs.10,80,400/- and terminated the agreemtn and general power of attorney on 25.12.2014. But O.P made reply through his Ld. Advocate on 18.9.2014 admitting all allegations including damage but did not pay any amount. Hence, this case for direction upon the O.Ps to pay the damages as mentioned above Rs.10,80,400/- along with interest @24% p.a and also award for damages for physical and mental suffering and haraswment at Rs.5,00,000/- and litigation cost Rs.10,000/- .

The O.P is contesting the case by filing written version and has denied all the allegatrions leveled against him . It has contended that one criminal caswe against the O.P before Ld. ACJM Baruipur being Complaint Case no.93 of 2008 is pending ,for which O.P failed to start the construction work. It has further stated that this case is only adjudicable in the civil court. O.P has prayed for dismissal of the case.

Point for decision in this case is whether the O.P has committed defidfeincy in service or unfair trade practice .

                                                            Decision with reasons

At the very outset it must be stated that the written argument of the O.P has no leg to stand upon in a dispute between the parties which is purely civil in nature . Moevoer,

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

 

 

 

Member                                               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 under section 12 of the C.P. Act is dismissed on contest without cost in the

 

light of the observation made here in above.

 

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