West Bengal

Hooghly

CC/174/2021

PRATIMA ROY - Complainant(s)

Versus

BALAJI HOUSING DEVELOPERS - Opp.Party(s)

31 Oct 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HOOGHLY
CC OF 2021
PETITIONER
VERS
OPPOSITE PARTY
 
Complaint Case No. CC/174/2021
( Date of Filing : 30 Dec 2021 )
 
1. PRATIMA ROY
KANAKSHALI,PO AND PS- CHINSRAH, PIN-712101
HOOGHLY
WEST BENGAL
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. BALAJI HOUSING DEVELOPERS
MORAN RD., PO- GONDAL PARA, PS- CHANDANNAGORE, PIN-712137
HOOGHLY
WEST BENGAL
2. SUMIT SUR
BARASAT, DASABHUJATALA, PO AND PS- CHANDANNAGAORE, PIN-712136
HOOGHLY
WEST BENGAL
3. ASIS MUKHERJEE
MONDAL BAGAN, LITCHUTALA, PO AND PS- CHANDANNAGORE, PIN-712136
HOOGHLY
WEST BENGAL
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Debasish Bandyopadhyay PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Babita Choudhuri MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Debasis Bhattacharya MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 31 Oct 2023
Final Order / Judgement

Order no. 16 , dt. 31.10.2023

This case record is taken up for consideration for passing order in respect of the petitions filed by OP of this case in the matter of sending this case to the arbitrator.  The complainant has filed written objection against the said objection of the OP for sending this case to the arbitrator.

Heard argument highlighted by both sides.  Considered submission.

Perused the petition filed by the complainant on 7.8.2023 and also examined the written objection which is filed by the complainant of this case.

It is the main point of contention and argument of the applicant/OP side that in the agreement for purchase there is a clause for settlement of the disputes through arbitrator and so this case is not maintainable.

On the other hand, the complainant has pointed out that this case has been filed against the OPs in respect of their illegal activities and as the OPs have not yet allotted the flat in favour of the complainant.  It has also been submitted that this case is ready for starting trial and so the petition filed by the OP under section 5 & 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1986 is not maintainable.   For the purpose of arriving at decision in respect of the above noted issue this District Commission after going through the material of this case record of C.C-174/21 finds that the complainant has filed one agreement for purchase of a flat on ownership basis dated.7th June, 2019 and on close examination of the said documents it is reflected that there is an arbitration clause and it has been decided by the parties that in the event of any disputes the matter should be referred to the arbitrator.  But fact remains that the complainant instead of following the said arbitration clause, has come forward before this district commission with a complaint.   Thus it is crystal clear that the case filed by the complainant is premature and so this case is not maintainable in the eye of law.

In the result, it is accordingly,

                                                                        ORDERED

That this complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest as this case has been filed in premature condition.

Let the complaint petition be returned to the complainant for filing the same before appropriate forum.

No order is passed as to cost.

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Debasish Bandyopadhyay]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Babita Choudhuri]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Debasis Bhattacharya]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.