West Bengal

Kolkata-III(South)

CC/32/2015

MR. MANOJ KUMAR BANERJEE - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S RSV BIODOME - Opp.Party(s)

29 Feb 2016

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM
KOLKATA UNIT-III(South),West Bengal
18, Judges Court Road, Kolkata 700027
 
Complaint Case No. CC/32/2015
 
1. MR. MANOJ KUMAR BANERJEE
Flat No.7, 56, Nandana Park, 22, Nandana Park, P.S.-Behala ,Kolkata-700034.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. M/S RSV BIODOME
S/O-Late Niranjan Chakrovorty, P 518, Raja Basanta Roy Road, P.S.-Lake, P.O.-Sarat Bose Road, Kol-700029
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Judge Satish Kumar Verma PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Balaka Chatterjee MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

Order No.9

Dt.29-02-2016

            Record is put up today for order.

            In brief the facts mentioned in the complaint are that one Mr. Monoj Kumar Banerjee, son of Late Gopal Chandra Banerjee of Flat No.7, 56, Nandana Park and Smt. Ila Banerjee, wife of Mr. Monoj Kumar Banerjee, filed the present complaint praying for a direction upon the OPs. to make the Deed of Conveyance in the name of petitioners in default for execution and registration of the Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner through Court and for cost or any other relief as this Forum deems fit in the circumstances.

            There are seven opposite parties in which No.1 is a partnership farm which is the developer and OPs from 2 to 7 are owners respectively of the land on which OP No.1 may construct a multi-storied building.

            Further, case of the Complainant is that Smt. Nanda Rani Seth was the owner of the land, measuring 10 (Ten) Cottahs 13 (Thirteen) Chittakas 16 (Sixteen) sq.ft. of premises No.56, Nandana Park on which the OP No.1  constructed the building.

            That the said Smt. Nanda Rani Seth died intestate leaving behind her sons and daughters who are opposite parties No.2 to 7.

            That the agreement for development was executed on 5  April, 2008 between OP No.2 to 5 and OP No.1 wherein it has been stated that OP No.1 shall construct the building. For that purpose, other OPs had signed the Power of Attorney in favour of OP No.1.

           It is also mentioned that developer shall have the right to sale his share to any purchaser. Accordingly, Complainants entered into an agreement for sale with OP No.1

            OP No.1 constructed the building and handed over the possession of the said flat bearing Flat No.7 measuring 781 sq. ft. More o0r less super built area on the 2 floor of South West East side of three storied building at 56, Nandana Park but developer did not register the flat in the name of the Complainant.

            So, present complaint has been filed and was registered as CC/32/2015.

            This Forum after considering materials on record admitted this complaint vide Order No.2 dt.24-11-2015. Thereafter notices were issued upon all the OPs but they did not appear so the case was heard ex-parte.

Decisions with reason

            Complainant has filed affidavit-in-chief wherein Mr. Monoj Kumar Banerjee has made certain statements on oath. On perusal of affidavit-in-chief it appears that he has asserted the facts mentioned in his complaint. He has further stated that he has filed the agreement and copy of the electricity bill. In paragraph 19 he has stated that his Lawyer Mr. Goutam Banerjee sent letters to all the other owners and OP No.1 to execute and register the Sale Deed to which OP No.1 agreed but rest of the OPs did not agree.

            Further, in Paragraph 15 he has stated that OP No.1 told that there is no necessity to bring all the land owners for the execution and registration of Sale Deed in favour of the Complainant.

            So, the main point for determination is whether Complainants can pressurise OP No.2 to 7 for register the flat in question in their favour.

            On perusal of the agreement for sale it appears that this agreement is between OP No.1 and Complainants. So, on the face of it question does not arise that Complainants can compel OP No.2 to 7 for becoming parties in registering the flat.

            In paragraph 17 of the agreement it is clearly mentioned that under “developer will handed-over uncumbered possession of the said flat or register final Deed of Conveyance. With this availability of water and electricity”. So, it is clear that developer shall hand-over possession. However, if this Forum takes into account the terms in paragraph 17, the case of the Complainants have no leg to stand. But, it is of common prudence that any agreement for sale whether the possession has already been handed-over, it is the bounden duty of the developer to register the flat in favour of the Complainants of the present case.

            Accordingly, we find that the liability is of developer to register the flat in favour of the Complainants and not OP No.2 to 7 as desired by the Complainant or as asserted in the complaint petition.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

CC/32/2015 and the same is allowed ex-parte. Developer OP No.1 is directed to register the flat in favour of the Complainants within three months of this order provided Complainants pay registration fee and other allied charges to the Government. The claim against OP No.2 to 7 for making registration is dismissed.       

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Judge Satish Kumar Verma]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Balaka Chatterjee]
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.