DISTRICT CO NSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,

 KOLKATA-700 0144

      C.C. CASE NO. __18_ _ OF ___2017

DATE OF FILING :13.2.2017    DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  01.08.2018

                                President       :  

                                 Member(s)    :    Subrata Sarker  & Jhunu Prasad

COMPLAINANT   :             Mr. Nantu Chandra Bhowmick, son of late Madhusudan Bhowmick of Ananda Niketan Apartment, Flat no.4E, of 7, Nafar Chandra Naskar Road, P.S Sonarpur, Kolkata-84.

•  VERSUS  -

O.P/O.Ps                    :  Ms. Surasree Das, D/o late Pijush Kanti Das of , Flat no.1E, of 7, Nafar Chandra Naskar Road, P.S Sonarpur, Kolkata-84.

_______________________________________________________________________

                                                J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

Sri Subrata Sarker, Member 

               The conspectus of the facts leading to the filing of the instant case by the complainant is that a Sale Agreement dated 4.4.2015 was executed between the complainant on one hand and the O.P and his mother on another hand. By the said Agreement, the O.P agreed to sell a flat in a multi storied building named ‘Ananda Niketan Apartment’ ,as succinctly described in schedule to the complaint for a total consideration price of Rs.17 lac. The complainant has paid Rs.1.75 lac to the O.P on different dates and the balance amount of consideration price was to be paid on the date of registration and delivery of possession of the flat. Thereafter, the mother of the O.P died and O.P became the sole owner of the flat. But, the execution and registration of the deed of conveyance has not seen the light of the day and the delivery of possession of the flat has still remained a distant dream. Requests after requests to the O.P for registration and delivery of possession of the flat has turned out to be a blind alley. Now, the complainant has prayed for refund of the money paid to the O.P or in the alternative, registration of the flat and delivery of khas possession thereof and also for payment of compensation etc. Hence, the case.

               Notice in this case was served upon the O.P , but the O.P did not appear and the case is ,therefore, heard exparte against him.

              No evidence has been led by the complainant in this case.

DECISION WITH REASONS

         It is to be seen now whether the complaint as filed by the complainant is maintainable before the Forum or not.

         On a perusal of the complaint, it is found that the complainant made an agreement for sale for the purpose of purchasing a flat as described in schedule to the complaint from the O.P for a total consideration price of Rs.17 lac. Such a sale appears to be sale simpliciter. There is no provision for any service or amenities involved in the sale agreement dated 4.4.2015 ,which has been executed by and between the complainant and the O.P. If there is no provision for any service involved in the transaction, occurring between the parties, the case appears to be not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. The Consumer Forum deals with ,inter alia, the two kinds of transactions – (1)   the defect of goods purchased by the complainant , (2)  the defect in service purchased by the complainant.  In the instant case, as there is no provision for service to be provided to the complainant by the O.P, the O.P is not the service provider and, therefore, the case appears to be not maintainable in Law and , as such, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

             In the result, the case fails.

               Hence,

ORDERED

             That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed exparte against the O.P without any cost.

         Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.   

                              Member                                            Member

          Dictated and corrected by me

                           Member