DATE OF FILING                    :     06-09-2013.

DATE OF S/R                            :      25-09-2013.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     29-05-2014.

Shri Kamal Dolui,

son of late Paritosh Dolui,

residing at 132, Hochi-Minh Sarani, P.S. Thakurpukur,

Kolkata – 700 008,

( Beside Bidya Bharati School, Behala ),

District – South 24 Parganas. ------------------------------------------------ COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.      M/s. Treekal Construction Co.

a  proprietorship firm,

having its office at premises

being no. 27/40, B.K. Pal Temple Road,

P. S.  Bally, District – Howrah,

PIN  – 711201.

2.      Sri Netai Trafdar,

son of late  Gopal  Chandra Trafdar,

residing at premises being

12, Bhajahari Chakraborty Lane, Belur,

P.S. Bally, District – Howrah,

proprietor of M/s. Treekal Construction Co.

PIN – 711201.--------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.               The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has  prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to allot two residential flats measuring 600 sq. ft. each and to pay all money as enumerated in the owners’ allocation described  in the development agreement dated 12-07-2007 and to pay compensation of Rs. 6 lakhs together with litigation costs as the o.ps. violated the agreement and deprived the complainant who is the land owner. 

2.               The o.ps. in the written version challenged the maintainability of the complaint on three counts namely on territorial jurisdiction, pecuniary jurisdiction and for non joinder of necessary parties.

3.        Upon pleadings the following points require to be determined :

i)          Whether the complaint is maintainable for non-joinder of parties  ?

ii)                  Whether the Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the complaint ?

iii)                Whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint ?

iv)                 Whether the complainant is   entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

POINT NOS. 1, 2 & 3 

4.               All the three  points are taken up together for consideration. Admittedly the complainant is one of the co-sharers and co-owners of the bastu land along with other six persons viz. Ajit Dolui, Sefali  Chowdhury, Mira Rani Das, Dipali Bera, Dipti Samanta and  Shanti Lata Maity. Unfortunately, they have not been made party to this complaint. It cannot be the sweet will of the complainant to pick and choose the names in the complaint to get redress.  For this score, the complaint is bad for non-joinder of parties. The claim of two residential flats by the complainant behind the back of other co-owners cannot  be   supported from the point of view of law. At best he can claim 1/7^th share out of the settled allocation and not the two flats together with the money.  That apart, the Dispute as it appears, is purely Civil Dispute. It cannot come within the ambit of the Forum, though there is no legal bar to a land owner to be a consumer.     

5.               The suit property is located at 111/A,  Surja Sen Road, Alam Bazar, P.S. Baranagar, 24 Parganas ( North ), Kolkata – 35, and all the cause of actions arose there. Naturally, the complainant also suffers from lack of territorial jurisdiction.

6.               The value of goods and service and the amount of compensation prayed for exceed the parameter of  Rs. 20 lakhs  and as such this Forum has no pecuniary  jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  The valuation of each flat as assessed by the Municipal Corporation is Rs. 18,79,200/- and thereby the valuation of two flats doubles the amount rendering the complaint barred before this Forum on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction.

           Accordingly all the three points are disposed of.

POINTS NO. 4        

7.      In view of our foregoing observation it would not be wise to go into the merit of

the complaint and as such the same shall be dismissed.

      Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 311  of 2013 ( HDF 311 of 2013 )  be and the same is dismissed as against the o.ps. as it is not maintainable.

      No order as to cost.         

      The complainant is at liberty to file the complaint before the appropriate Forum.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (    T.K. Bhattacharya  )                                              

  President,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.