West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/11/2016

Amit Kumar Naskar, S/O Late Madhab Chandra Naskar. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Goutam Singh, S/O Jadu Prasad Singh. - Opp.Party(s)

Asis Chakraborty.

03 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144

 

      C.C. CASE NO. _11_ OF ___2016_

 

DATE OF FILING : 4.2.2016                       DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 03.06.2016

 

Present                        :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :    Mrs. Sharmi Basu

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT             :    Amt. Kumar Naskar,s/o late Madhab Chandra Naskar of Vill. Gopalpur, P.O Sorkarpool, P.S. Maheshtala, Kolkata – 143 .

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                            :  Goutam Singh, s/o Jadu Prasad Singh, Vill. Rampur, P.O-(M) Gobindopur, P.S. Maheshtala, Kolkata – 141.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President

            The short case of the complainant is that an agreement for sale was made on 29^th April, 2015 with the O.P for sale of self contained flat measuring 500 sq.ft more or less standing on Bastu Land measuring 1 cattah 3 chittak more or less on the ground floor situated at mouza-Rampur within the jurisdiction of Maheshtala Municipality Ward no.11 Holding no.B3-221/35/1-3 Santoshpur Station Road, P.S. Maheshtala, Kolkata – 141 at a consideration of Rs. 4 lacs , out of which, complainant paid Rs.1,50,000/- towards the advance to the O.P on 24.4.2015 and O.P promised to execute and register the deed of conveyance after receiving the remaining amount of Rs.2,50,000/- within six months i.e. by 23.10.2015 from the date of agreement and also deliver the peaceful possession of the said flat to the complainant. It has further stated that complainant was ready to pay the balance amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the O.P requested him several times verbally to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the said property but the O.P neither executed the deed of conveyance nor reimburse the said advance money of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant and never delivered possession of the same to the complainant, for which, complainant served demand notice but the O.P did not bother to reply the same. Hence, this complaint with a prayer to pass necessary order to the O.P to execute and register the deed of conveyance after accepting the balance amount of Rs.2,50,000/- or to reimburse the said part consideration money of Rs.1,50,000/- in cash at a time with a current banking interest to the complainant. It has further prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and legal expenses Rs.30,000/-.

            Inspite of sending summon the O.P failed to appear for which, the case is running against the O.P in exparte.

            Point for decision in this case is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P or not.

 

 

 

                                                                        Decision with reasons

            We have perused the agreement for sale along with the demand notice as well as receipt of advance money which is mentioned in page 3 bottom portion of the agreement for sale and we find that it is the glaring example of deficiency in service.

            We have perused the evidence in chief filed by the complainant, wherefrom complainant has specifically stated all his grievances and harassment after paying Rs.1,50,000/- for a self contained ownership flat of 500 sq.ft within the jurisdiction of Maheshtala Municipality Ward no.11. It is needless to say that house or flat is a dream of any human being and all persons according to their ability wanted to get a shelter or roof for him and his successor and that dream has already been destroyed by the unruly and unfair act of the O.P which has been nakedly proved by the unchallenged allegation of the complainant and his evidence in chief as well as documentary evidence like agreement for sale and demand notice.

            It is needless to sya that we are aware that exparte order is an order like the contested order. So, that order is also executable order in the eye of Law. So, if the O.P thinks that he will not appear in order to harass the complainant, particularly when, he has received the summon and having knowledge with the procedure and if he thinks that after passing the exparte order he will challenge the same before the Hon’ble State Commission and thereby once again harass this poor complainant ,who had a dream for a little flat for his shelter and also for his family , by getting remand order, then also our view is that Hon’ble State Commission will consider the harassment of the complainant and to stop this type of unruly O.P who has a knowledge of the procedure and willfully avoided to appear ,so that the poor complainant be frustrated mentally, physically as well as monetary. So, this aspect cannot be brushed aside and our view is that this type of unruly O.P should be thrown away by any of the Forum. This observation is made for the interest of the poor consumers who are the principal beneficiary of the consumer movement and most important visitor on our premises and we are aware that Consumer is not dependant on us and we are on him and he is not an interruption to our work, and he is a purpose of it and we are not doing a favour to a consumer by giving him an opportunity of being heard in exparte ,particularly when, O.P did not agree to appear in this case. It is needless to say that Consumer is doing us a favour by giving an opportunity to serve him which is a social duty of this bench, holding the bench of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.

            With that observation we are highly satisfied that O.P acted unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

            Hence,

                                                                                    Ordered

That the application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 is allowed against the O.P in exparte with cost of Rs.20,000/-.

The O.P is hereby directed to deliver physical possession of the flat as well as to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the flat measuring 500 sq.ft  in terms of the agreement for sale within one month from the date of the order after accepting Rs.2,50,000/- from the complainant, failing which, O.P is hereby directed to refund said advance money of Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest @9% p.a on and from 24.4.2015 till its realization.

O.P is further directed to pay compensation for willful harassment to the complainant to the tune of Rs.50,000/- within that period of one month from the date of this order, failing which, complainant is at liberty to execute the order through this Forum.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the O.P through speed post.

 

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, 1986 is allowed against the O.P in exparte with cost of Rs.20,000/-.

The O.P is hereby directed to deliver physical possession of the flat as well as to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the flat measuring 500 sq.ft  in terms of the agreement for sale within one month from the date of the order after accepting Rs.2,50,000/- from the complainant, failing which, O.P is hereby directed to refund said advance money of Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest @9% p.a on and from 24.4.2015 till its realization.

O.P is further directed to pay compensation for willful harassment to the complainant to the tune of Rs.50,000/- within that period of one month from the date of this order, failing which, complainant is at liberty to execute the order through this Forum.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the O.P through speed post.

 

Member                                               Member                                                                       President