DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,
KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. _103_ OF ___2017
DATE OF FILING : 8.8..2017 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: _25.6.2018_
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker & Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : 1. Sri Nirmal Kumar Saha, son of late Chandi Prasad Saha
2. Smt. Baijanti Rani Saha, wife of Sri Nirmal Kumar Saha
` both of Jasoda Bhawan, 167G, Rashbehari Avenue, P.S Gariahat, Kolkata – 19.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. Smt. Anima Majumdar, wife of late Ashutosh Majumdar of Dhalua, Garia, P.O Fartabad, P.S Sonarpur, Kolkata – 152.
2. The Director, M/s Dwapar Estates Pvt. Ltd. at 46C, Chowranghee Road, 9th Floor, Everest Building, P.S Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 71.
_______________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the instant complaint are that the O.P-1 is the land owner and O.P-2 is the developer. A Sale Agreement was executed on 14.10.2006 by and between the O.Ps on one hand and one Chandi Prasad Saha , father of the complainant no.1 and Smt. Baijanti Rani Saha, complainant no.2, on the other. By the said agreement, the O.P-2 agreed to sell a flat as succinctly described in schedule to the complaint to the complainants for a total consideration price of Rs.6,15,400/-. Total consideration price of Rs.6,15,400/- was paid by the complainants to the O.P-2. O.P-2 also delivered the possession of the flat to the complainants on 7.12.2007. But the flat has not been registered in favour of the complainants and, therefore, the complainants have filed the instant case ,praying for registration of the flat and payment of compensation etc. Hence, the case.
The O.P-2 made appearance in the case and also filed written statement to contest herein. But thereafter he has not turned up and, therefore, the case is heard exparte against him. Payment of Rs.6,15,400/- is admitted by the O.P and it is also admitted that the possession of the flat has been delivered to the complainant on 6.5.2010 and O.P-2 is ready and willing to register the subject flat in favour of the complainants. According to him, there is no deficiency in service on his part.
O.P-1 has not filed any written statement to contest herein and the case is also heard exparte against her.
Upon the averments of the parties following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Are the O.Ps guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Complainant has led Evidences on affidavit which is kept in the record for consideration. No evidence whatsoever has been led by the O.Ps and, therefore, the case is heard exparte against them.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 & 2 :
In the instant caseit has been admitted by the O.P-2 that the subject flat has not been registered in favour of the complainants.It is also admitted by him that he has received the payment of consideration price of Rs.6,15,400/- and that possession of the subject flat has also been delivered to the complainants. On the other hand, the complainants only pray for registration of the subject flat and nothing else. In this regard, we find no difficulty whatsoever to pass an order directing the O.Ps to register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainants, because the complainants are entitled to get the sale deed in respect of the subject flat. Until and unless such a sale deed is executed and registered in their favour, title of the complainants to the subject flat will ever remain a distant dream. So, the complainants are entitled to get the deed of conveyance registered in favour of them by the O.Ps.
The full consideration price of the subject flat has been paid to the O.P-2 by the complainants and the possession of the flat has also been delivered to the complainants by the O.P-2 on7.12.2007. Since then, more than 10 years have passed away but the O.P-2 has not taken any step for getting the subject flat registered in favour of the complainants. Prolonged silence and inertia on the part of the O.P-2 is undoubtedly a deficiency in service on his part and that due to this deficiency in service, the complainants will have to pay a huge amount at present on account of enhancement of stamp duty and registration fee. This payment on account of stamp duty and registration fee after a lapse of about 10 years by the complainant is a huge loss to be incurred by the complainants and this loss can only be attributed to none but the O.P-2. The O.P-2 will have to compensate this loss to the complainants.
The point nos. 1 and 2 are thus answered in favour of the complainants.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
ORDERED,
That the complaint case be and the same is decreed exparte against the O.Ps with a cost of Rs.5000/- to be paid by the O.P-2 to the complainants.
Both the O.Ps are directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainants within a month of this order, failing which, the complainants are at liberty to get the sale deed registered in their favour with the help of the machinery of the Forum.
O.P-2 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainants for loss sustained by the complainants due to delay in execution and registration of the sale deed by him in favour of the complainants, within a month of this order , failing which, the compensation amount and the amount of cost as referred to above will bear interest @10% p.a till full realization thereof.
Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
President
I / We agree
Member Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
