DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C.C. No.260/2019
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
29.08.2019 09.09.2019 09.03.2023
Complainant/s:- | - Sri Sanjib Malakar, S/o Late Sachindra Malakar, Resident of Natun Pukur School Road, (Ghola Kachari Road) P.O. & P.S. Barasat, District – North 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700124.
= Vs = |
Opposite Party/s:- | - Bivas Dey, S/o Late Nitai Chand Dey,
- Smt. Piyali Dey, W/o Sri Bivas Dey,
Both of 4/27, Mukherjee Para Road, Charakdanga first Lane, P.O. & P.S. Barasat, District – North 24 Parganas, Pin – 700124. |
P R E S E N T :- Smt. Monisha Shaw …………………. Member.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu …………………. Member.
JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER
This complaint is filed by the Complainant U/s 11 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended up to date) alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the OPs as the OPs did not take any step to redress his grievance till filing of this complaint.
The Complainant and the Opposite Party executed an agreement on October 2013 for selling of the shop room measuring more or less 100 sq.ft. on the ground floor under the below mentioned building ‘MATRI APARTMENT’ (G + 4 storied building) on the land measuring more or less 3 Cottah 8 Chhitak which is situated and lying at Mouza – Barasat, Touzi No. 146, J.L. No. 79, R.S. No. 261, Khatian No. 37, Daag No. 742 within the limit of Barasat Municipality, being Ward no. 27, Holding No. 32/2, School Road, Ghola Kachari Road, P.S. Barasat, District North 24 Parganas. This shop room was intended to purchase for the Complainant’s livelihood. The Complainant and the O.Ps consideration money for the shop room was fixed @ Rs. 3,01,000/- and the Complainant paid Rs. 3,00,000/- to the O.P out of Rs. 3,01,000/-.
The Complainant further stated that the O.P agreed to register the deed of conveyance to the shop room measuring more or less 100 sq.ft. in favour of the Complainant’s name or his nominated person within 24 months after residual payment of Rs. 1,000/-. The O.Ps completed the said apartment in the year 2016 and thereafter the Complainant repeatedly requested to the O.Ps to register the said shop room but the O.Ps avoided on various pretext.
The Complainant further stated that the O.Ps completed the said apartment in the year 2016. Then after, the Complainant made several occasion to request to register the shop room but the O.Ps assured that they would comply registration within November 2016. The Complainant repeatedly requested in different time to make registration or to execute the deed before April, 2018 but in vain. On 06/02/2019 and 29/05/2019 the Complainant sent a legal notice to the Opposite Parties but there was no fruitful result.
As per Complainant’s version the Advocate of the Opposite Parties named Partha Pratim Bal received Rs. 4,000/- from the Complainant for registration expenses for registration of the said shop room at Matri Apartment and the money receipt is enclosed with the record.
The Complainant stated that he used to reside Natun Pukur School Road, (Ghola Kachari Road) P.O. & P.S. Barasat, District – North 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700124.
From the record, it is evident that the O.Ps received the notice and O.P. No. 1 and 2 filed W/V on 26/02/2021 vide order no. 05. In the W/V, the O.Ps stated that the present case did not disclose the meaningful cause of action and as such it required to be dismissed and the present case has no survival value and the Complainant is not legally entitled to enforce his time barred claimed under the protection of relevant status.
The O.P No. 1 and 2 submitted that it is absolutely false to say that the Opposite Parties became agreed to execute a register deed of conveyance of subject property upon receiving balance consideration amount. The Opposite Parties denied and disputed the statement made therein in the said complaint and the Opposite Parties are not liable to execute the deed of conveyance in respect of the subject property in favour of the Complainant in absence of any valid and subsisting
Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./
: : 2 : :
C.C. No.260/2019
agreement for sale in favour of the Opposite Parties as per the version of the Opposite Parties the Complainant has withdrawn himself from the present agreement so that the Opposite Parties are not legally responsible to execute the deed of conveyance in respect of the subject property in favour of the Opposite Parties and they have not knowledge as to whether Mr. Partha Pratim Bal received Rs. 4,000/- on account of registration of the proposed deed or not. So, they prayed for to dismiss the present case with cost.
Prayer of the Complainants:-
- For direction of the Opposite Parties to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of ‘B’ scheduled property at the cost of the Opposite Parties within the stipulated period as directed by the Ld. Commission. If the Opposite Parties failed to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the Complainant within the stipulated period by this Commission. The Complainant may be directed for execution and registration of the deed of conveyance in his favour thourgh the Ld. Commission.
- For an order directing the Opposite Parties to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- only for the harassment and mental agony and loss caused by the Opposite Parties as the Ld. Commission may permit.
- For all cost of the instant case.
- For other relief or reliefs which the Complainant is entitled.
Following issued were framed for the purpose of decision:-
- Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief / reliefs in this case.
‘A’ SCHEDULED PROPERTY
All that piece and parcel of land measuring 3 Cottah, 8 Chhitaks along with 200 sq.ft. structure (Tile shed) standing thereon lying and situated at Mouza Barasat, J.L. No. 79, R.e. S.a No. 261, Touzi No. 146, Khatian No. 37, Daag No. 742 under Ward No. HAL – 27 (Old 8), Holding No. 32 and 32/1 School Road, Ghola Kachari Road under Barasat Municipality which is butted and bounded by
ON THE NORTH : GHOLA KACHARI ROAD
ON THE SOUTH : SURANJAN SEN and JAGADISH SEN
ON THE EAST : GOPAL BISWAS and DHIREN MONDAL
ON THE WEST : MUNICIPAL ROAD
‘B’ SCHEDULED PROPERTY
All that piece and parcel of a shop room at measuring 100 sq.ft. super built up area lying on the Ground Floor at Mouza – Barasat, J.L. No. 79 Touzi No. 146, R.e.S.a No. 261, Khatian No. 37, Daag No. 742 under Ward No. HAL – 27 (Old 8), Holding No. 32 and 32/1 School Road, Ghola Kachari Road under Barasat Municipality which is butted and bounded by
ON THE NORTH : 20 feet wide road
ON THE SOUTH : SURANJAN SEN and JAGADISH SEN
ON THE EAST : GOPAL BISWAS and DHIREN MONDAL
ON THE WEST : MUNICIPAL ROAD
Contd. To Page No. 3 . . . ./
: : 3 : :
C.C. No.260/2019
Decision with reasons:-
Considering the facts and circumstances as well as nature and character of this case all the points are interlinked to each other and as such all the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of brevity and convenience.
On perusal of the materials along with the supporting affidavit related to documents available in the case record as well as hearing of argument by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant, it is revealed that the Complainant deposited amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- out of Rs. 3,01,000/- to the OP No. 1 and 2. Here the status of the OP No. 1 and 2 are service provider and the Complainant being a customer of the OPs, so the Complainant becomes a consumer as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The Complainant resides at Natun Pukur School Road, (Ghola Kachari Road) P.O. & P.S. Barasat, District – North 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700124 and the OP No. 1 and 2 is situated within the District of North 24 Parganas and the claimed amount does not exceed the pecuniary limit of this Commission. Therefore, this Commission has ample power to try this case.
We have perused the complaint as well as Examination-in-Chief on affidavit filed by the Complainant. We have perused the copy of the money receipt which was provided by the O.P members with the supporting affidavit and other documents filed by the Complainant. On perusal of the aforesaid materials it appears that the Complainant paid Rs. 3,00,000/- on 28/10/2013.
Since the O.Ps did not register the deed of conveyance in respect of the shop room to the Complainant. Complainant repeatedly request to execute and register the deed of conveyance after receiving Rs. 1,00,000/- though the Complainant was ready to pay the said amount (i.e. Rs. 1,00,000/-). As such there is deficiency in part of the Opposite Parties.
We have perused the complaint filed by the Complainant. We have perused the copy of the money receipt along with the supporting affidavit, other documents filed by the Complainant. On perusal of the aforesaid material, it appears that the Complainant paid Rs. 3,00,000/-, out of total consideration amount of Rs. 3,01,000/- and after receiving the said amount the OPs did not register the suit property (shop room) after receiving the balance consideration amount.
The discussed point bears positive result. As such we are of the view that the Complainant is entitled to get registration done by the O.Ps after receiving the balance amount.
Thus, all the points are discussed accordingly.
Hence, for ends of justice
It is
Ordered
That the instant case being no. C.C. 260/2019 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OPs with cost.
The Opposite Parties are directed to register the said shop room within 03 (three) months from this date after receiving the balance consideration amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and after receiving the balance consideration amount the OPs are directed to register the deed of conveyance in respect of the said shop room.
The O.Ps are also hereby directed to get registration to the Complainant within 03 (three) months failing which the Complainant will be at liberty to put this decree into execution according to law.
Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per the CPR, 2005.
Dictated & Corrected by me
Member
Member Member
