In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 136 / 2006
1) Sri Tapan Kumar Sen and
2) Smt. Santa Sen
Both of 100/1, Kareya Road, 1st Floor,
South Side Flat, Kolkata-700019. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) Nurul Huda Layek,
100/1, Kareya Road (Fourth Floor), Kolkata-700019. ----- Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. A. B. Chakraborty, Member
Order No. 5 3 Dated 3 0 / 0 3 / 2 0 1 2 .
The petition of complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainants Sri Tapan Kumar Sen and Smt. Santa Sen against the o.p. Nurul Huda Layek. The case of the complainants in short is that complainants entered into an agreement for sale with o.p. on 23.6.1999 for purchase of a flat measuring more or less 600 sq.ft. at premises no.11/1 Koreya Road, Kolkata-19 at a consideration of Rs.3,35,000/-. Subsequently a supplementary agreement was executed on 20.8.01 between the parties for added 200sq.ft. area with a further consideration of Rs.4 lakhs and accordingly complainant made payment of total amount of Rs.6 lakhs to o.p. out of Rs.7,35,000/- in phases as mentioned above and the balance amount was required to be paid at the time of execution of deed of conveyance and the balance amount was scheduled to be paid by complainant at the time of execution of deed of conveyance. The fat was handed over on 28.12.01 to the complainant and the complainant alleged that incomplete was handed over to him subject to the commitment to finish the unfinished work within the stipulated time and the o.p. did not do so at all. Complainant last sent Rs.17,500 plus Rs.17,500 in two separate account payees cheques bearing nos.185620 and 007387 to o.p. on 6.4.06 by regd. post with a/c and o.p. refused to accept the said two cheques on 12.4.06 and complainant has made averment in the petition of complaint that the cause of action is a continuing process which started on and from 12.4.06 and the instant case was filed on 22.5.06 very much within the limitation period. It is evident from the record that the agreement for sale was not a registered agreement and it is also for the evident from the record that the complainant is in possession of the flat on being offered by o.p. So the question whether the agreement was registered or not does not arise in the summary trial particularly when o.p. acted upon the said agreement and he is estopped from further agitating the self same issue afurther. In view of the findings above and on perusal of the entire materials on record disclosed we are of the view that o.p. refused to accept two cheques of Rs.17,500/- each sent by the complainant by regd. post with a/d and this action on the part of o.p. amounts to deficiency of service as a whole i.e. in the matter in issue being a service provider to his consumer /complainant.
Hence, ordered,
That the petition of complaint is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. O.p. is directed to execute the deed of conveyance in respect of the premises as shown in the scheduled of the petition of complaint after receipt of the balance amount payable by the complainant to his credit as per agreements (two) and complainants are also directed to comply the said order and registration cost and allied cost in the process of registration shall have to be borne by the complainants. O.p. is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only to the complainant for his harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 45 days, i.d. law will take its own course.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties.
____Sd-____ _______Sd-________
MEMBER PRESIDENT
