J U D G E M E N T         

                  The door of this Forum has been knocked by the Complainant, for redressal arising out of the consumer dispute as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

                                      C. C. Case No. 136/2012

               In laconic, the case stated in the complaint, is that, the Complainant had agreed to purchased a Garage on the Ground floor measuring 552 sq. ft. including 15% super built up area at a total consideration amount of Rs. 16,20,000/- only out of which the Complainant had paid an advance amount of Ts. 1,00,101/- only on issuing the ‘Money Receipt’ signed by the Opposite Party No. 2 on the back side of the said ‘Receipt’.

                Thereafter on 09.08.2012 the Complainant went to the Opposite Parties as they both assured the Complainant to execute and register the ‘Sale Deed’ within 15.08.2012 and as per instruction and help of the Opposite Parties by supplying the relevant documents to the Complainant and the Complainant had prepared the same by his own Ld. Advocate which was duly approved by the Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Parties and the Complainant had duly prepared the Final Deed but on the date fixed for registration of the said ‘Sale Deed’ the Opposite Parties was absent for doing so as because the Opposite Parties asked 10% of the total price to do the registration of the said ‘Sale Deed’ but for the same the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant demanded only 8%.

                 Ultimately the Opposite Party No. 2 sent a legal notice to the Complainant on 17.08.2012 taking false plea that due to illness of the Opposite Party No. 1 taking false plea that the Opposite Party No. 1 was hospitalized and the Opposite Party No. 2 agreed to sell the said garage and also admitted to receive the consideration amount but falsely mentioned that no commitment for selling the garage was made and tried to sell the said garage to some third party.

                     The Complainant requested the Opposite Parties to execute and register the ‘Sale Deed’ in respect of the said garage on payment of balance consideration amount but the Opposite Parties never paid any heed to him, what amounts deficiency and/or negligence in rendering service towards him, for which he has to suffer harassment and mental agony and prayed for compensation. Hence, this case is filed seeking adequate redressal.

                                    C. C. Case No. 136/2012

               Resisting the complaint, the Opposite Parties filed the two Written Versions denying each and every allegation made by the Complainant in the petition of complaint contending inter alia, that the Complainant has no cause of action and is not maintainable either in fact or in law and is totally false.

               The specific case of the Opposite Party, in terse, is that, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 to purchase a go down in the said building constructed by the Opposite Parties and constantly pressurized the Opposite Parties to sell the said go down at a lower price but the Opposite Parties refused. Thereafter on 26.06.2012 the Complainant along with some local antisocial came to the premises of the Opposite Parties and pressurized the Opposite Party No. 1 to sign some blank stamp papers. At this time the Opposite Party No. 2 came to resist them but the Complainant with help of those antisocial forcibly took some signatures on some blank papers and ransacked which caused damages of Rs. 50,000/- only and also took some original papers including signed ‘Money Receipt’ of their company and also took Rs. 10,000/- only and fled away for which the Opposite Parties had lodged a Complaint Case before the ACJM, Serampore. Thus the Opposite Parties denied to do any negligence or deficiency in rendering the service towards the Complainant and prayed for dismissal of the case.

                              Points for Consideration

   1. Is the complaint maintainable under the C. P. Act ?

   2. Was there any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the O.P ?                            

   3. Is the complainant entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?

                                            Decision with reasons

               All the points are taken up together for consideration for convenience and brevity.

                The main dispute between the Complainant and the Opposite Party is that whether the Complainant is entitled to get the said garage executed and registered by the Opposite Parties on payment of the balance consideration amount and whether the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 are liable to do the same after receiving the balance amount or not.

                In coming into conclusion regarding the present dispute we have gone through the Complaint and Written Version and also critically appreciated the material documents on record.

               On scrutinizing the case record it is revealed that the dispute arose from the fact that alleged by the Complainant against the Opposite parties that after receiving the part amount of consideration amount the Opposite Parties did not agree rather negligent to execute and register the ‘Sale Deed’ in favour of the Complainant, which the Opposite Parties strictly denied by filing their Written Version and stated that the Complainant forcibly took the signature of the Opposite Party No. 2 in some blank papers and also took some original documents from the premises of the Opposite Parties.  

                On overall evacuation of the arguments advanced by the Ld. Advocates of the Complainant and the Opposite Parties both, it is evident that no formal ‘Agreement for Sale’ was actually executed by and between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties. But it is also evident that the Opposite Party No. 2 had received a sum of Rs. 1,00,101/- only on 09.07.2012 from the Complainant for selling a garage on the ground floor of the said building as constructed by them and had issued a ‘Money Receipt’ wherein the Opposite Party No. 2 had written the details of the said alleged Garage, which was described in the ‘B Schedule’ in the complaint, including the total consideration amount.

                Moreover, in the said legal notice dated 17.08.2012 which was sent by the Opposite Party No. 2 to the Complainant, it is found that the Opposite Party No. 2 admitted the fact that he received the said part payment of Rs. 1,00,101/- only and had issued a ‘Money Receipt’ in favour of the Complainant,

though it is stated in that legal notice that the Opposite Party No. 2 has done it by mis representation of the Complainant. But nowhere in that legal notice the Opposite Party No. 2 had stated the fact of forcible took the signatures in some blank papers and/or took out the original documents from the custody of the Opposite Parties, which the Opposite Party No. 2 had specifically stated and/or alleged in their Written Version.   

               Materials on record reveal that, the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 are the Owners and also the Developers of the said building and is the seller of the said disputed Garage and the Complainant is the intending purchaser by paying the party advance payment out of the entire consideration amount towards the Opposite Party No. 2 and the Opposite Party No. had admittedly received the same. Moreover the Complainant specifically has expressed his intention that he is always ready and willing to pay the rest to the Opposite Parties.

                Furthermore, the statement regarding the Complaint Case filed by the Opposite Party No. 2 against the Complainant before the Ld. ACJM Court, Serampore, is the different issue and not the matter of fact to adjudicate the instant case.

               Thus the fact remains that the Complainant had actually paid the part payment towards the consideration amount as his part of obligation to the and ready and willing to pay the rest as his part and the same was duly received by the Opposite Party No. 2 for which the Opposite Parties are liable to do their part of obligation by executing and registering the ‘Sale Deed’ in respect of the said Garage as described in the ‘B’ Schedule in the Complaint in favour of the Complainant on receiving the balance consideration amount.

               So, the forum inclined to hold that the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 are liable to execute and register the ‘Sale Deed’ in respect of the said Garage as described in the ‘B Schedule’ in the Complaint and the Complainant shall have to pay the balance consideration amount of Rs. 5.19.899/- only to the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 at the time of the registration of the said Garage.

                Therefore, in the light of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the Complainant has successfully proved his case and is entitled to get the relief as prayed for and consequently the points for consideration are decided in affirmative.

                In short, the Complainant deserves success.

                In the result, we proceed to pass

                                                    O R D E R 

                That the case be and the same is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 with cost of Rs. 5,000/- only payable by both Opposite Parties within one month from the date of this ‘Order’.

                 That the Opposite Party no. 1 & 2 jointly and severally are directed to hand over the actual vacant possession of the said Garage on the Ground floor, as specified in the ‘B Schedule’ of the Complaint, within a period of one month from the date of this ‘Order’.

                That the Opposite Party no. 1 & 2 jointly and severally are further directed to execute and register appropriate Deed of Conveyance, in favour of the Complainant in respect of the said Garage, as specified in the ‘B Schedule’ of the Complaint, within a period of one month.

                That at the time of registration of the said garage, the Complainant is also directed and shall bound to pay the balance consideration amount of Rs. 5,19,899/- only to the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 without any fail.

                That failing to do the said registration work by the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 the complainant has liberty to get the said Garage registered through the Forum and in this case the Complainant is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,19,899/- only in total to the head of the ‘President’ of the DCDRF, Hoogly at Chinsurah.                                      

                That the Opposite Party no. 1 & 2 jointly and severally are further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- only to the Complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony within one month from the date of this ‘Order’.    

                In the event of non compliance of any portion of the order by the Opposite Parties within a period of one month from the date of this order, the defaulting Opposite Party shall have to pay a sum of Rs. 200/- per day, from the date of this order till its realization, as punitive damages, which amount shall be deposited by the Opposite Party in the State Consumer Welfare Fund.

                Let copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied for.