West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/144/2023

Debasish Rudra S/O- Dilip Rudra - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Kundu Enterprise Proprietor Sri Arabinda Kundu - Opp.Party(s)

S.S Chowdhury

28 Jun 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
South 24 Parganas
Baruipur, Kolkata-700 144
 
Complaint Case No. CC/144/2023
( Date of Filing : 27 Sep 2023 )
 
1. Debasish Rudra S/O- Dilip Rudra
112, N.S. Road, P.S- Sonarpur, Kol- 153
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. M/S Kundu Enterprise Proprietor Sri Arabinda Kundu
H/40A, Baghajatin, P.S- Jadavpur, Kol- 700 092
2. Pranab Bhattacharya S/O- Late Durga Charan Bhattacharya
49, Nahin Chand Ghosh Street, Kol- 148
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  SHRI ASHOKE KUMAR PAL PRESIDENT
  SMT.SHAMPA GHOSH MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 28 Jun 2024
Final Order / Judgement

Shri Ashoke Kumar Pal, Hon’ble President:-

Stripped of unnecessary details the case of the complainant in short is that the complainant with intent to purchase a flat more fully described in the schedule of the petition of complaint as well as agreement for sale executed by and between the parties on 25.09.2012. The consideration amount was settled at Rs. 5,41,000/- and the possession of scheduled flat was delivered in favour of the complainant on 30.09.2012 and since then the complainant is in possession of the said flat. The complainant requested the O.Ps. on several occasions and on 03.07.2023 to execute and register a proper deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant. But despite payment of the consideration amount the O.Ps. declined to execute and register a proper deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant in respect of the said flat inspite of request by the complainant on various occasions which prompted the complainant to file the instant complaint case on the relief as sought for in the petition of complaint.

The O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 did not come forward to contest the case by filing W/V and as such, by Order No. 5 dated 29.01.2024 the instant complaint case was heard ex-parte against the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2.

Points for consideration :-

  1. Is the complainant a consumer?
  2. Are the O.Ps. guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice?
  3. Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?

Decisions with reasons :-

Point No.1 :-

On perusal of the case record along with copies of documents, it appears that the complainant was willing to purchase a flat as described in the agreement for sale as well as the schedule of the petition of complaint. The complainant paid the consideration amount of Rs. 5,41,000/- on different dates and the O.Ps. acknowledged the receipt of the same. Therefore, the complainant is a consumer as defined U/S 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

As such, Point No.1 is decided in favour of the complainant and against the O.Ps.

Points No.2 & 3 :-

Both the Point Nos. 2 & 3 are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience and as they are interlinked.

The complainant booked the scheduled flat more fully described in the schedule of the agreement for sale and made payment of Rs. 5,41,000/-. The delivery of possession of the said flat was made on 30.09.2012 and since then the complainant is in possession of the said flat. The complainant requested the O.Ps. on several occasions to execute and register a proper deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant. But the O.Ps. turned down the request of the complainant and did not execute and register a proper deed of conveyance which gave rise to this complaint case. The O.Ps. did not come forward to contradict the statement made by the complainant. Therefore, it appears that the complainant failed to get service from the O.Ps. On the other hand, the complainant was harassed by the O.Ps. by various ways.  Therefore, it is clear from the averments of the complainant that the O.Ps. are guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  As such, the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.

Thus the Point Nos. 2 & 3 are also decided in favour of the complainant and against the O.Ps.

In the result, the complaint case succeeds.

Fees paid is correct.

Hence, it is

                                                              ORDERED

That the instant complaint case be and the same is hereby allowed ex-parte against the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 with cost of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) only.

The O.Ps. are jointly and severally liable and are directed to execute and register a proper deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant in respect of the scheduled flat within 30 days from the date of passing this order on receipt of the balance consideration amount, if any, i.d, the complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution and get the deed of conveyance executed and registered through the machinery of this commission.

The O.Ps. are jointly and severally liable and are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand) only for mental pain, agony and harassment caused to the complainant,  within 30 days from the date of passing this order.

The O.Ps. are jointly and severally liable and are directed to pay the litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) only within 30 days from the date of passing this order.

Let a copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties concerned.

That the final order will be available in the following website:www.confonet.nic.in.

Dictated and corrected by me.

 

          President

 
 
[ SHRI ASHOKE KUMAR PAL]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[ SMT.SHAMPA GHOSH]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.