Mr. Subrata Gupta, Prop Of Uma Associates. V/S Mr. Pradip Chakraborty, - Consumer Court Case

West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/31/2015

Mr. Pradip Chakraborty, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr. Subrata Gupta, Prop Of Uma Associates. - Opp.Party(s)

Malini Chakraborty.

15 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , JUDGES’ COURT, ALIPORE KOLKATA-700 027

C.C. CASE NO. _31_ OF ___2015__ 15.07.2016.

DATE OF FILING : 19.1.2015 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: __

Present : President : Udayan Mukhopadhyay

Member(s) : Mrs. Sharmi Basu

COMPLAINANT : Mr. Pradip Chakraborty , Sanku Bani Apartment, 314 , Shree Nag Main Road,

P.S. Sonar Pur, Kolkata – 700 094.

-VERSUS -

O.P/O.Ps : Subrata Gupta, Prop. Of Uma Associates , 1/16A, Prince Golam Md. Shah Road, Kolkata – 95.

________________________________________________________________________

J U D G E M E N T

Mrs. Sharmi Basu, Member

The instant case has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 with allegation of deficiency in service against the O.P.

In a nutshell the case of the complainant is that the complainant has entered into an agreement with the Propriter of Uma Associates for registration of a land and paid the total consideration of Rs.1,75,000/-. But after repeated requests of the complainant, the O.P has not execute and register the land in question even after several requests followed by letter through Ld. Advocate on 25.04.2014. but all in vein. Therefore, the complainant has no other alternative but to come before this Forum for redressal of his dispute with the prayers as mentioned in the complaint petition.

The O.P has appeared before this Forum even after valid service of notice upon him and the instant case is adjudicate exparte against the O.P. and all the documents, being unchallenged pice of testimony, considered as turue.

After scrutinizing four corners of the case following points are in limelight :

Whether the complainant is a Consumer or not.
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps or not.
Whether the complainant is eligible to get relief as prayed for partly or fully.

Decision with reasons

Point no.1: From the record it appears that the complainant paid the total consideration of the plot to the O.P towards. From Agreement dated 06.02.2013 para 2 it reveals that it is within that agreement that the complainant agreed to pay land development charges on priority basis of the actual expenditure incurred by the developer. Therefore, this is a case where the development of plot of land is involved and then it is beyond doubt that the complainant of the instant case is “Consumer” under the purview of the C.P. Act’86 (section 2(1)(d)(ii).

Here, it is pertinent to mention that in the land mark Judgement against Lucknow Development Authority Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe that dispute regarding developed plot is under the purview of the C.P Act, 1986. Considering the above discussion, it is crystal clear that the complainant of the instant case is ‘Consumer’ and the O.P is a service provider as per provision of the C.P Act.

Thus Point no.1 is discussed in favour of the complainant.

The Point nos. 2 and 3 are discussed together for convenience.

After scrutinizing vividly the complaint petition, written version and all other documents brought before this Forum and hearing the case of the complainant it is beyond doubt that the complainant entered into an agreement for purchasing a developed plot with the O.P and paid the total consideration of Rs. 1,75,000/-. But even after several verbal requests and subsequent Advocate’s letter dated 25.07.4.2014 with request to register the deed of conveyance of the suit property in favour of the complainant , the O.P has not done the same. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that this inaction of the O.P amounts to deficiency in rendering services towards the complainant/consumer and O.P is duty bound to execute and register the deed of conveyance of the developed land in question in favour of the complainant.

To decide whether the complainant is eligible to get compensation from the O.P following discussion is advanced . It is beyond doubt that when a person with intention to purchase a plot of land giving total consideration of the same some person , then he or she has expectation that the property in question should be registered in his or her name immediately. But in the instant case, the agreement was signed between the parties on 06.02.2013 but till date of hearing of the instant case registration of the plot in the name of the complainant has not been performed by the O.P. it is beyond doubt that it has caused tremendous mental agony and financial loss . It is needless to be mentioned that the cost of land is increasing day by day considering the area where the land is situated. Causing much more expense of the complainant / consumer at the time of execution and registration of the deed of conveyance Therefore, the complainant is eligible to be compensated aptly by the O.P .

Thus point nos. 2 and 3 goes in favour of the complainant.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case of the complainant is allowed exparte with cost .

The O.P is directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the plot of land in question within 30 days from this date of order.

The O.P is also directed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant within 30 days from this date.

The O.P is directed to comply all the above orders within 30 days from this date, failing which, he has to pay Rs.50/- per diem to the complainant till full and final compliance.

Complainant is at liberty to file Execution case before this Forum under the provision of the copra, 1986 in case of non – compliance of this order by the OP.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the parties free of cost.

Member President

Dictated and corrected by me

Member

The judgement in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,