West Bengal

StateCommission

CC/628/2019

Smt. Papiya Maji Dey - Complainant(s)

Versus

Goutam Dasgupta - Opp.Party(s)

Ms. Mautusi Hazra

03 Sep 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
WEST BENGAL
11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087
 
Complaint Case No. CC/628/2019
( Date of Filing : 16 Aug 2019 )
 
1. Smt. Papiya Maji Dey
W/o Mr. Shankar Dey, Flat no.5, 1st Floor, 63A, Taltala Library Row, P.S. Taltala, Kolkata - 700 014.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Goutam Dasgupta
Sole prop., Shristi Contractor & Builders, 2A, Sir Devaprasad Row, P.S. Taltala, Kolkata -700 014.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. AJEYA MATILAL PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. NITYASUNDAR TRIVEDI MEMBER
 
PRESENT:Ms. Mautusi Hazra, Advocate for the Complainant 1
 Mr. Sunil Kr. Brahmachari, Advocate for the Opp. Party 1
Dated : 03 Sep 2024
Final Order / Judgement

Hon’ble Mr. Ajeya Matilal, Presiding Member

This is an application under Section 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986.  The consideration of the subject flat was 51 lakh and Rs. 7 lakh was prayed for as compensation.

The fact of the case is in short like that the Complainant entered into an agreement for sale with the OP in respect of the scheduled flat of more or less 800 sq. ft. area consisting of two bedrooms, two toilets and one kitchen.  The Complainant paid full consideration amounting to Rs. 51 lakh only to the OP.  But the OP allotted only Rs.800 sq. ft. although he has taken price for 869 sq. ft. from the Complainant.  The OP after getting full consideration handed over the full possession of subject flat.  The Xerox copy of the money receipt in respect of the flat is at annexure A. 

The OP sent a letter to the Complainant on 24.01.2017 and stating that the captioned flat has been successfully completed by the OP in all respect and the possession of the same delivered to the Complainant.  The possession letter dated 24.01.2017 is at annexure B of the Complaint.   In spite of receiving the consideration of money OP did not execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the said flat and did not refund the excess amount received from the Complainant in respect of 69 sq.ft.  In spite of the repeated demands from the Complainants the OP did not do the needful.  The Complainant lodged a complaint against the OP with the O/C, Taltala P.S. over the issue on 11.08.2018.  The copy of complaint is annexure at C.  The Complainant made a demand notice vide an Advocates Letter on 17.05.2018 and after receiving the same the OP gave reply to the Complainant`s Advocate, Ardhendu Nag vide letter dated 07.06.2018 alleging the OP is ready and willing to register the deed of conveyance. The Complainant requested the OP several times to register the same.  But the OP did nothing in this regard.  Subsequently, the Complainant sent a complaint to the Assistant Registrar, Consumer Affairs Department, Govt. of West Bengal. The copy of the said letter is at annexure D.  Alleging the aforesaid deficiency the Complainant files the same praying for direction upon the OP to register the deed of conveyance in respect of the scheduled flat within 2 weeks. The Complainant prayed for compensation of Rs.7 lakh. 

The OP contested the case by filing a W/V denying the allegations of the claimed petition along with technical pleas.  According to them there was no dispute in respect of delivery of the flat regarding the area and measurement.  According to the OP the claim made by the Complainant for price of 69 sq. ft. in respect of the flat is not proper.  The flat has been delivered to full satisfaction of the purchaser.

For proper adjudication of the disputes between the parties following points are required to be considered:

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form?

2.  Has the Consumer any cause of action to file the complaint?

3. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief?

 4. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any other relief?

DECISION WITH REASONS:-

All the points are taken together for the sake of convenience.

It is an admitted position that the Complainant paid the entire consideration which would reveal from the documents annexed by the Complainants.

This fact is also not disputed that the Complainant got possession of the scheduled flat.

Now the question is that whether there was any shortfall of area in 69 sq.ft. as alleged by the Complainant.

But we did not find any documentary evidence to the effect that there was any shortfall area as alleged.

However, in the light of the above discussion we find that the Complainant has the cause of action to file the case and is entitled to get relief as sought for.

Hence, it is,

O R D E R E D

The Case No. CC/628/2019 is allowed on contest against the OP with compensation of Rs.2 lakhs and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- within 45 days from this order failing which the Complainant is at liberty to put the order into execution.

The copy of this judgment be made available to the parties free of cost.  

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. AJEYA MATILAL]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. NITYASUNDAR TRIVEDI]
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.