DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS ,
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. 87_ OF ___2017
DATE OF FILING :11.7.2017 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 28.03.2018
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker & JhunAu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Smt. Mitra Ghosh, wife of Sri Dipendra Nath Ghosh of 3, Sukanta Pally, Old Calcutta Road, Barrackpore, P.O Talpukur, P.S Titagarh, Dist. North 24-Parganas, Pin-700 123.
- VERSUS -
O.P/O.Ps : Md. Akbar Hossain Modndal, son of late Monjat Ali Mondal of 138, Ukhila Paik Para, Narendrapur, P.S Sonarpur, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Kolkata – 700 103.
_____________________________________________________________________
J U D G E M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
Briefly stated, the facts of the complainant are that O.P is a promoter and he sold away one flat as succinctly described in Schedule to the complaint for Rs.2,88,600/- by virtue of an agreement for sale dated 6.2.2002. The possession of the flat was also made over to the complainant by the O.P and completion certificate was also granted to him. But the O.Ps refused to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant and the lawyer’s notice dated 16.5.2017 which was served by the complainant on the O.P failed to prdocue any fruitful result. This case is, therefore, filed by the complainant, praying for registration of the flat ,compensation etc. Hence, this case.
Notice of the case was served upon the O.P through paper publication. But the O.P has not turned up to contest the case. Hence, the case is heard exparte against him.
Upon the averments of the parties the following points are formulated for consideration in this case.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
- Is the O.P guilty of deficiency in service for non execution and non-registration of the subject flat in favour of the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
EVIDENCE OF THE COMPLAINANT
The petition of complaint is treated as evidence of the complainant vide ordre no.9 dated 20.3.2018.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 & 2:
On perusal of the materials on record it is found that the possession of the flat was made over to the complainant in the year 2005 i.e about 14 years ago. Sicne then, the registration of the subject flat in favour of the complainant has not been effected by the O.P. The act of the O.P is a gross negligence and such negligence is treated as gross deficiency in service on his part. He should have caused the registration of the flat in favour of the complainant. Had the registration been completed in the year 2005, the complainant could not have been required to pay enhanced stamp duty. Now, the complainant will have to pay much more price for enhanced stamp duty and registration fee and this is considered a great loss on the part of the complainant. The O.P is responsible for such loss caused to the complainant and he will have to compensate the complainant for this loss.
Both the points as mentioned above are decided accordingly in favour of the complainant and the ordre is passed accordingly.
In the result ,the case succeeds.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is decreed exparte against the O.P with cost of Rs.5000/-.
The O.P is directed to effect registration of the flat and to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation for causing loss to the complainant within a month of this order, failing which, the compensation amount and the amount of cost will bear interest @12% p.a till full realization thereof.
Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
President
We / I agree.
Member Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
T
