IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.CC/179/2016

Date of Filing: 06.12.2016                                      Date of Final Order: 08.01.2019

Complainant:  Ismatara Bibi,

W/o Abdul Khalek

Vill-Gopalganj, PO-Purapara,

PS-Suti, Dist-Murshidabad,

Pin-742201

-Vs-

Opposite Party: 1.Mozaffor Hossain Momin,

S/o Lt. Md. Hossain Momin

Vill-Sultanpur, PO-Chhabghati,

PS-Suti, Dist-Murshidabad,

 Pin-742201

2. Asraful Sk

3. Soriful Sk

4. Monirul Sk

5. Mohabul Sk

6. Sahabul Sk

all S/o Nousad Ali

7. Sefali Khatun

8. Lata Khatun, D/o Nousad Ali

9.Sahanara Bibi, W/o, Aktasul Sk

All of Vill- Gopalganj, PO- Purapara

PS-Suti, Dist-Murshidabad,

Pin-742201

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri. Utpal Kumar Paul

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 : Sri. Fairdaus Wahid Siddique

          Present:   Sri Asish  Kumar Senapati………………….......President.                              

                                         Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.

FINAL ORDER

Asish Kumar Senapati, Presiding Member.

This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

One Ismatara Bibi (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Mozaffor Hossain Momin and Others (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:

The Complainant and one Tuni Bibi, since deceased, mother of OP Nos.2-9 purchased some  property from the OP No.1 vide registered deed dated 25.04.17 at a consideration of Rs. 1,60,000/- but the OP No.1 did not deliver possession of the said property on the pretext that the possession of the property would be delivered after harvesting crops on the land. Thereafter the Complainant and her husband came to know in May,2016  that the property had been transferred to other persons. The Complainant requested the OP No.1 to refund the consideration money but of no result. Hence, the Complainant has filed the case praying for refund of her share of Rs. 80,000/- , interest Rs.20,000/- and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- against the OP No.1.

   The OP Nos. 2-9 did not turn up in spite of service of notice but the OP No.1 contested the case by filing written version dated 11.04.17, contending, that the case is not maintainable as the allegations against the OP No.1 are false. It is the specific case of the OP No.1 that the OP No. sold out his property to the Complainant at a consideration of Rs.1,60,000/- by executing a registered deed of sale and the Complainant has been possessing the property since the date of purchase. The Complainant has filed criminal case on some false allegations vide Suti, P.S. case No. 1029/2017 dated 27.12.16 u/Ss 420/323/354/506 IPC.

            The OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

On the basis of the above version the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :

Points for consideration

1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

3. Has the OP No. 1 any deficiency in service, as alleged?

4. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Point No.1

            Neither of the parties has taken part in hearing of argument. No written argument is also filed on behalf of  either of the parties.

            Perused the written complaint, written version, evidence and xerox copy of sale deed dated 25.04.07. A Consumer may raise consumer disputes for defect in goods or deficiency in service and the service has been defined under section 2 (I )(o) of the C.P. Act, 1986.

 The term Consumer has been defined in Sec. 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986.

            On going through the materials on record, we find that a sale deed was executed on 25.04.07 in favour of the Complainant and one Tuni Bibi in respect of Plot No. 310 and 315 of Mouja Puja Para, JL No.63. It is the case of the Complainant that the OP No.1 transferred the said property to others and did not deliver possession of the property to the Complainant and Tuni Bibi on various pretexts.  The Complainant has not alleged that she hired services of the O.P. No.1 for a consideration  and the O.P. No.1 has deficiency in service. There is no case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1.  The claim of the Complainant cannot be entertained by this Forum   as  the Complainant has failed to establish that she is a consumer in terms of section 2(I)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986.

Point Nos. 2,3 & 4

            We have gone through the materials on record as the Complainant has failed to establish that she is a consumer in terms of section 2(I)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986. We find no justification to discuss on point Nos. 2,3 & 4. We think that the Complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service/defect in goods against the OP No.1. Therefore the Complainant is no entitled to get any relief in this case.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 06.12.16 and admitted on 11.01.17 . This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day order.

In the result, the Consumer case fails.

  Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is

                                   Ordered

that the complaint Case No.CC/179/2016 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the OP No.1 and dismissed on ex-parte against the OP Nos. 2-9 without cost.

   Let plain copy of this order  be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand  /by post under proper acknowledgment  as per rules, for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

confonet.nic.in

Dictated & corrected by me.

             President.                        

        Member                                                                                          President.