BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, HOWRAH.
COMPLAINT CASE NO. HDF 378 OF 2014
DATE OF FILING : 08.7.2014.
DATE OF S/R : 13.8.2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 30.12.2014.
Kuheli Hazra,
daughter of Sri Shyamal Hazra,
resident of Elite Apartment, 1st floor,
Uluberia Bazar Para, Bhaktar More, P.S. Uluberia,
District Howrah. …………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.
Versus -
Dr. Jagannath Das,
son of late Shyama Pada Das,
Smt.Chinu Rani Das,
wife of Dr. Jagannath Das,
both resident of 9, B.G. Road, Flat no. 105, P.S. Shibpur,
District Howrah.……………………………….…………OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to execute and register proper deed of sale with respect to the suit garage and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-together with litigation costs as the o.ps. in spite of receiving the full consideration money of Rs. 6 lakhs on 08.01.2013 did not execute the same in violation of the agreement.
The o.ps. in their written version contended interalia that the agreement as alleged does not have any legal entity ; that it was signed by the o.p. no. 1 on duress ; that F.I.R. was lodged on this score; that the payment of consideration money is connected. So the complaint should be dismissed.
3. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. ?
Whether the complainant isentitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
Both the points aretaken up together for consideration. The deed of agreement dated 08.1.2013 unerringly indicates that the o.p. no. 1 executed the same in favour of the complainant after receiving the entire consideration money of Rs. 6,00,000/- with respect to the schedule mentioned property.The allegation in the written version vide paras 9 and 10 is just an amateurish attempt to hoodwink the court to establish his innocence. If the o.p. no. 1 was compelled to sign on each pages of the agreement on duress or if he was kidnapped, what factors desisted him to fileF.I.R. with the local P.S.The F.I.R. vide para 11 of the written version was lodged on 10.10.2013 long after nine months of the deed of agreement dated 08.01.2013 and that too U/S 447/323/379/506/34 I.P.C. No section for kidnapping was added.
Furthermore, the execution of a deed of gift dated 24.5.2013 by the o.p. no. 1 in favour of o.p. no. 2 with respect to the self same property is also an eye wash to justify his own misdeed. If the o.p. no. 1 was sincere to his wife o.p.no. 1, he could have executed the deed of gift prior to the date of the agreement dated 08.01.2013 and not after four and half months i.e., on 24.5.2013.
The complainant is very much in possession of the property. The deed of agreement is proper. The o.p. no. 1 executed the same in favour of the complainant stating that none of his legal heirs shall have any right to raise any question.
We are, therefore, of the view that this is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 378 of 2014 ( HDF 378 of 2014 ) be and the same is allowed on contest as against the o.ps. with costs.
The O.Ps. be directed to execute and register proper deed of sale with respect to the schedule mentioned property in favour of the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.
The o.ps. do further pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental pain and unnecessary harassment together with Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs within the period as above mentioned.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( T.K. Bhattacharya )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
( Jhumki Saha ) ( P. K. Chatterjee ) (T.K. Bhattacharya )
Member, Member, President,
C.D.R.F., Howrah. C.D.R.F., Howrah. C.D.R.F., Howrah.
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, HOWRAH.
COMPLAINT CASE NO. HDF 378 OF 2014
DATE OF FILING : 08.7.2014.
DATE OF S/R : 13.8.2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 30.12.2014.
Kuheli Hazra,
daughter of Sri Shyamal Hazra,
resident of Elite Apartment, 1st floor,
Uluberia Bazar Para, Bhaktar More, P.S. Uluberia,
District Howrah. …………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.
Versus -
Dr. Jagannath Das,
son of late Shyama Pada Das,
Smt.Chinu Rani Das,
wife of Dr. Jagannath Das,
both resident of 9, B.G. Road, Flat no. 105, P.S. Shibpur,
District Howrah.……………………………….…………OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
Complainant, Kuheli Hazra,by filing apetition U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986
( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.ps. to execute and register the garage in question, to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment along with litigation costs and other order/orders as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
Brief fact of the case is that complainant made a payment of Rs. 6,00,000/-
to o.p. no. 1 for purchasing a garage space situated at the premises Elite Apartment at dag no. 420, Khatina no. 186, J.L. no. 86, at Latibpur under Uluberia Municipality, District Howrah, and that garage is owned jointly by both o.p. nos. 1 & 2 as per the original sale deed dated 25-01-2007 registered on 09-02-2007 submitted by the o.ps. at the time of hearing. O.p. no. 1 made an agreement on 08-01-2013 declaring therein that he would execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant with respect to the said garage as and when complainant wants him to do so. O.p. no. 1 also undertook in the said agreement that he would also procure the signature of o.p. no. 2, his wife, required to be taken at the time of execution of the sale deed in favour of the complainant. But it alleged that even after expiry of the stipulated period, o.p. no. 1 did not do so. And on different incidents, both parties lodged F.I.R. under different sections of I.P.C. One Title Suit being no. 74 of 2014 was filed by the complainant, which was also subsequently withdrawn as per the version of the complainant. Although at the time of hearing ld. lawyer for the o.ps. submitted that the T.S. being no. 74 of 2014 is still pending. However, as complainant claims to be a consumer of o.p. nos. 1 & 2, she filed this instant petition praying for aforesaid relief.
Notices were served upon o.ps. Both the o.ps. appeared and filed written
version.
Upon pleadings of both partiesthe mainpoint arose for determination :
Whether the matter in issue can be adjudicated properly under C.P. Act, 1986 ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
We have carefully gone through the complaint/petition and its annexures as well as the written version and its annexures and noted their contents. On meticulous reading and examining of all documents filed by all parties, it is very much clear that the matter in issue involves several important questions of law which are very much civil in nature. The agreement dated 08-01-2013 with respect to the garage in question is signed only by o.p. no. 1, when it is a fact that the garage in question is owned jointly by both o.p. nos. 1 & 2 for which o.p. no. 1 alone made the agreement with the complainant. So o.p. no. 1 made such an agreement on his own accord keeping o.p. no. 2 in dark. Moreover, can a person of sound mind & health undertake on behalf of another person of sound mind and health to obtain his or her signature on an important document like sale deed. Again, whether the agreement in question is a valid one, when it is not signed by both o.ps. as they are the joint owners of the property in issue, it is to be decided as per the provision of Indian Contract Act, 1872. Moreover, there is no whispering in the original deed dated 25.01.2007 as to the permissibility as well as acceptability to enter into an agreement with any 3rd party by either of the owners. Further o.p. no. 1 executed a deed of gift on 24.5.2013 in favour of the o.p. no. 2 with respect to his share in the garage in question. So all these questions can never be resolved without taking elaborate evidence of both parties on dock.
Ours is a summary trial Forum. So, according to our candid opinion the instant case can only be properly adjudicated by a civil court.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 378 of 2014 ( HDF 378 of 2014 ) is returned to the complainant without disposing of it on merit with a liberty to file afresh before the appropriate court of law.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( Jhumki Saha)
Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
( Jhumki Saha ) ( P. K. Chatterjee )
Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah. Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
