Heard on 13th April, 2016/.
Judgement on : Wednesday, the 20th day of April, 2016.
HON’BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY,REPRESIDING MEMBER
Judgement
The present appeal U/s. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “ the Act “ ) to impeach the Order no. 15 dated 22.08.2014 made by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit – I, Kolkata ( for short, Ld. District Forum ) in Consumer Complaint No. 164 /2013 thereby the Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint as the agreement in question does not bear the signature of the purchaser.
The Appellant herein being complainant initiated the Consumer complaint U/s. 12 of the Act with prayer for certain reliefs in respect of a Plot of land measuring about 1800 sq.ft. together with common facilities lying and situated at Mouza – Bhasa, District – South 24-Parganas with a prayer for a direction upon the Opposite Party /developer to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in favour of him on the basis of the terms the deed of agreement for sale dated 25.08.2006.
After entering appearance the Opposite Parties filed an application challenging the maintainability of the case and the Ld. District Forum without discussing anything as to the contents of the said application rejected the complaint simply on the ground that the purchaser/Complainant did not put his signature on the said agreement.
Mr. Debesh Halder, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has drawn our attention to paragraph – 6 of the application of the Opposite Parties wherein they have challenged the maintainability of the proceeding has submitted that when the Opposite Parties admitted the signature of the purchaser in paragraph – 6 of the application itself there was hardly any occasion on the part of Ld. District Forum to reject the petition of complaint. For proper appreciation of the matter, it would be worthwhile to reproduce the contents of paragraph -6 of the application which runs as follows :
“that the complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite parties after going through the terms and conditions of the said agreement and duly put his signature and as such it is well known by the complainant regarding the terms and conditions of the agreement in question ........ “.
Needless to say, an admitted fact does not require any proof. Practically, the Opposite Parties had no opportunity to deny the factum of booking by the Complainant with regard to the property in question. In this regard the letter dated 15.09.2010 given by the O.P/Developer to the Complainant is noteworthy. By that letter the Opposite Party /Developer admitted the inordinate delay in completion of the project and assured the Complainant that the work of development will be started after Puja festival and expected date of completion project is 2012. As the developer could not keep his words, under compulsion the Complainant being Consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act had to lodge this complaint against the Opposite Parties for deficiency of services on the part of them as service provider.
Therefore, the matter does not require any elaborate discussion. The fact remains that the Ld. District Forum has passed the impugned order in a cryptic manner without application of judicial mind in ascertaining the real controversy between the parties and arrived at a decision in a very casual manner and as such the order being not sustainable should be set aside.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed exparte but without any order as to costs.
The Order No. 15 dated 22.08.2014 passed by the Ld. District Forum in CC No. 164/2013 is hereby set aside.
The parties are directed to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 16.05.2016 to receive further order from that end. The Ld. District Forum is requested to proceed with the case as expeditiously as possible and to dispose of the same in accordance with law.
The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send acopy of this order to the Ld. District Forum for information and necessary action.
