DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C.C. No. 270/2021
Date of Filing Date of Admission Date of Disposal
07.12.2021 07.02.2022 20.02.2024
Complainant/s:- | SRI SNEHASISH CHAKRABORTY, Son of Sri Ashutosh Chakraborty, of 13, Bapuji Colony, P.O. Ichapore Nawabgung, P.S. Noapara, North 24 Parganas, Pin No. 743144. =Vs= | |
Opposite Party/s:- | - M/S SWABHUMI ENGINEERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, registered office at 1, Port Blair Lane (Cold Storage Building), 2nd Floor, Satibazar, P.O. Barrackpore, P.S. Titagarh, North 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700120, represented by the Director Sri Prabir Roy, son of Late Hara Kumar Roy of 37, S. N. Banerjee Road, Majumdar Math, P.O. & P.S. Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700120.
- SRI SAMBHU NATH SHAW (Director of M/S Swabhumi Engineers and Developers Private Limited), son of Biswanath Shaw of 28, Mariyam Mahal Barrackpore, P.O. & P.S. Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700120.
- SRI PRASUN ROY (Constituted Attorney of the land owners), son of Sri Prabir Roy of 37, S.N.Banerjee Road, Majumdar Math, P.O. & P.S. Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700120.
- SRI PRIYA NATH PAL ROY, son of Late Pramatha Nath Pal, of Anjangarh, Feeder Road, P.O. Shyamnagar, P.S. Jagatdal, North 24 Parganas, Pin No. 743127.
- SRI SUHRID BARAN PAL ROY, son of Late Pramatha Nath Pal, of Anjangarh, Feeder Road, P.O. Shyamnagar, P.S. Jagatdal, North 24 Parganas, Pin No. 743127.
- SRI ASIT BARAN PAL, son of Late Pramatha Nath Pal, of 18/a Gautam Enclave, Sector B, AWHO Colony, Secunderabad, P.O. Monovikasnagar, P.S. Karkhana, Andhra Pradesh 500009 and temporarily residing with his son Wing Commander Angshuk Pal at OMQ 100/3, HQ Maintenance Command, P.O. Vayusena Nagar, P.S. Panchpaoli, Nagpur 440007.
- SMT. NAMITA SEN, W/o Late Sushil Chandra Sen of 142A, Anand Palli, Jadavpur, P.O. Jadavpur University, P.S. Jadavpur, Kolkata – 700032.
- Dr. SAMINDRA NATH PANDA, S/o Dr. Sachandra Nath Panda at residing at “Latika Apartment”, Flat No. C1, 75, Hindusthan Park, P.O. Sarat Bose Road, P.S. Rabindra Sarobar, Kolkata – 700029 and temporarily residing of 72 Parkhall Road, Walsall, West Midlands, United Kingdom.
- SRI SHOMIK PANDA, S/o Dr. Samindra Nath Panda at residing at “Latika Apartment”, Flat No. C1, 75, Hindusthan Park, P.O. Sarat Bose Road, P.S. Rabindra Sarobar, Kolkata – 700029 and temporarily residing of 72 Parkhall Road, Walsall, West Midlands, United Kingdom.
- SMT. CHANDA PAL ROY, W/o Late Manmatha Nath Pal Roy, residing at Anjangarh, Feeder Road, P.O. Shyamnagar, P.S. Jagatdal, North 24 Parganas, Pin No. 743127.
- SRI ARUNABHA PAL ROY, S/o Late Manmatha Nath Pal Roy, residing at Anjangarh, Feeder Road, P.O. Shyamnagar, P.S. Jagatdal, North 24 Parganas, Pin No. 743127.
- SRI AMITHABHA PAL ROY, S/o Late Manmatha Nath Pal Roy, residing at Anjangarh, Feeder Road, P.O. Shyamnagar, P.S. Jagatdal, North 24 Parganas, Pin No. 743127.
|
| | | | |
P R E S E N T :- Sri. Daman Prosad Biswas……….President.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu…………………. Member.
JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER
Complainant above named filed this complaint U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the aforesaid Opposite Parties praying for direction to register the big garage being garage no. 3 in favour of the Complainant and pay increasing registration fees from 2015 to till registration, to complete the incomplete work of the garage to provide Completion Certificate and Possession Certificate in favour of the Complainant.
Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./
: : 2 : :
C.C. No./270/2021
Compensation amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/-, litigation cost amounting to Rs. 50,000/- and other reliefs.
He alleged that O.P No. 1 and 2 are the developers. Complainant booked one garage vide garage no. 3 with the consideration of Rs. 3,95,000/- and he paid Rs. 1,00,000/- as advance. O.P No. 1 and 2 handed over the physical possession of the said garage no. 3 after several requests to the Complainant on or before December 2015 without possession letter after receiving the entire consideration amount from the Complainant but did not arrange for registration of the said garage no. 3 in favour of the Complainant inspite of several requests. After getting the physical possession of the said garage Complainant find that developer handed over the same without completion of work. Complainant requested so many times to O.P No. 1 and 3 to complete the pending work but they did not do the same. Complainant issued reminder on so many occasions. Aforesaid act of the O.P No. 1-3 are nothing but deficiency in service and instance of unfair trade practice.
Notice not yet served upon O.P No. 1, 4, 6-9. Paper publication was made against them through a daily newspaper namely ‘Ajkal’ dated 13/04/2022. They did not turn up before this Commission till 29/05/2023.
Notice served upon O.P No. 2 on 13/04/2022. Notice served upon O.P No. 3 on 12/04/2022. Notice served upon O.P No. 5 on 13/04/2022. Notice served upon O.P No. 10 on 12/04/2022. Notice served upon O.P No. 11 on 12/04/2022. Notice served upon O.P No. 12 on 12/04/2022. They did not turn up before this Commission till 29/05/2023.
As the O.Ps not yet appeared before this Commission within the statutory period case is running ex-parte against them vide order no. 12 dated 29/05/2023.
TRIAL
During Trial Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief.
DOCUMENTS
At the time of filing this complaint, Complainant filed the following documents:-
i) Copy of agreement for sale dated 22/02/2013……1 set…..xerox.
ii) Copy of money receipt dated 22/02/2013 for the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-……1 set…..xerox.
iii) Copy of money receipt dated 14/03/2013 for the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-……1 set…..xerox.
iv) Copy of money receipt dated 07/02/2014 for the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-……1 set…..xerox.
v) Copy of money receipt dated 05/07/2014 for the amount of Rs. 95,000/-……1 set…..xerox.
vi) Copy of Adhar Card of the Complainant………..1 sheet……xerox.
BNA
Complainant filed BNA.
Decisions with Reasons:-
We have heard Ld. Advocate for the Complainant. Perused the petition of complaint, affidavit-in-chief filed by Complainant, documents filed by the Complainant and BNA filed by the Complainant.
Documents filed by the Complainant were verified at the time of hearing of argument. Aforesaid affidavit-in-chief filed by the Complainant is unchallenged testimony.
During hearing Ld. Advocate for the Complainant argued before this Commission that Complainant paid the entire consideration amount as per the agreement but till date Opposite Parties not yet executed the sale-deed, not yet issued completion certificate and not yet completed the pending works.
Contd. To Page No. 3 . . . ./-
: : 3 : :
C.C. No. 270/2021
Perused documents filed by Complainant before this Commission (Xerox). As per copy of agreement we find that Opposite Parties were agreed to sell one garage in favour of the Complainant with the consideration of Rs. 3,95,000/- and out of the said amount Complainant paid Rs. 1,00,000/- 22/02/2013 and Rs. 1,00,000/- on 14/03/2013. These two amounts have noted in the agreement for sale. Complainant also produced copy of those two money receipts. Accordingly it is clear before us that Complainant paid Rs. 2,00,000/- at the time of execution of agreement for sale. Complainant also produced other two money receipts in support of the fact that he paid balance consideration of Rs. 1,95,000/-. On perusal of money receipt dated 07/02/2014 we find that Complainant paid Rs. 1,00,000/- and on perusal of money receipt dated 05/07/2014 we find that Complainant paid Rs. 95,000/- in favour of the O.P No. 1 and 2. So it is clear before us that Complainant paid the entire consideration amount of aforesaid garage amounting to Rs. 3,95,000/- in favour of the O.P No. 1 and 2. We failed to understand as to why the O.P No. 1 and 2 not yet executed the sale-deed in favour of the Complainant relating to the aforesaid garage. Complainant further alleged that some works are still pending in the said garage and O.P No. 1 and 2 not yet completed the same inspite of repeated requests.
In view of aforesaid discussion it is clear before us that the aforesaid act of the O.Ps are nothing but deficiency in service.
On perusal of record we find that Complainant is the consumer and O.Ps are the service provider. The aforesaid act which done by the O.Ps are nothing but deficiency in service.
Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, we are of the firmed view that Complainant has able to established his grievance by sufficient documents beyond reasonable doubt and he is entitled to reliefs as per his prayer.
In the result, present case succeeds.
Hence,
It is
Ordered:-
That the present case be and the same vide no. CC/270/2021 is allowed ex-parte against the O.Ps with cost of Rs. 3,000/- (three thousand) to be paid by O.Ps in favour of the Complainant.
O.Ps jointly or severally are directed to arrange registration of sale-deed and to issue completion certificate in respect of the garage mentioned in the petition of complaint in favour of the Complainant within 45 days from this day failing which Complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
O.Ps jointly or severally are directed to arrange pending works of the garage mentioned in the petition of complaint within 45 days from this day failing which the Complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
O.Ps jointly or severally are further directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) in favour of the Complainant positively within 45 days from this day failing which the Complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.
Dictated and Corrected by me
President
Member President
C.C. No. 270/2021
Order No. 16
Dated:-20.02.2024
Today is fixed for final order / judgment. Ld. Advocate for the Complainant is present. Final Order / Judgment is ready and same is pronounced in open Ejlash.
Final Order / Judgment is kept with the record. As per Final Order / Judgment
It is
Ordered:-
That the present case be and the same vide no. CC/270/2021 is allowed ex-parte against the O.Ps with cost of Rs. 3,000/- (three thousand) to be paid by O.Ps in favour of the Complainant.
O.Ps jointly or severally are directed to arrange registration of sale-deed and to issue completion certificate in respect of the garage mentioned in the petition of complaint in favour of the Complainant within 45 days from this day failing which Complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
O.Ps jointly or severally are directed to arrange pending works of the garage mentioned in the petition of complaint within 45 days from this day failing which the Complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
O.Ps jointly or severally are further directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) in favour of the Complainant positively within 45 days from this day failing which the Complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.
Dictated and Corrected by me
President
Member President
