IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC/05/2013
Date of Filing: 11.01.2013. Date of Final Order: 26.03.2015.
Complainant: Nupur Tewari(Chakraborty), W/o Abhijit Chakraborty, 27/82 Joychand Road, P.O.Khagra, P.S. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad.
V/s
Opposite Party: 1) Partha Sarkar, 2) Debasish Sarkar, 3) Asim Sarkar all sons of late Priyaranjan Sarkar 4) Gita Sarkar, W/o Late Priyaranjan Sarkar – all residing at 20 Amar Chakraborty Road, P.O.Khagra, P.S. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad, Pin: 742 103. 5) Tamal Chatterjee, S/o Late Tapan Chatterjee, 15 Ghosalpara Road, P.O. & P.S. Barasat, Dist. North 24-Parganas, Pin: 700124 6) Anikjit Chatterjee, S/o Amal Chatterjee, 63C Ghosalpara Road, P.O. & P.S. Barasat, Dist. North 24-Parganas, Pin: 700124 7) Siddhartha Mukherjee, S/o Swaraj Mukherjee, 39H Rathtala Road, P.O. & P.S. Barasat, Dist. North 24-Parganas, Pin: 700124 8) Sankar Saha, S/o Late Rangeswar Saha, Sahanagar, Amtala Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Barasat, Dist. North 24-Parganas, Pin: 700124 9) Ranjit Saha, S/o Late Rabi Kr. Saha, Kutul Sahi Road, P.O. & P.S. Barasat, Dist. North 24-Parganas, Pin: 700124.
Present: Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya ………………….President.
Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra ……………………..Member.
Smt. Pranati Ali ……….……………….……………. Member.
FINAL ORDER
Smt Pranati Ali, Presiding Member.
The complainant’s case in brief, is that on being intended to purchase a Flat No. 3B of a Six-storied building known as “Priyaranjan Abasan” which is under construction at Khagra from Ops. Op no.1 to 4 as land owner and OP Nos. 5 to 9 as developers jointly made a Deed of Agreement for sale on 18.03.2010, where they agreed the price of the Flat is in total of Rs.13, 01,000/- with a comfortable living condition. But when the complainant observed that Ops mainly the developers made delay to complete the work, even stopping construction works due to disputes raised in between landowners and developers. Then the complainant/purchaser developers and land owners discussed the matter and made the deed of sale on 30.12.11. The complainant, however, paid a sum of Rs.13, 01,000/- to the OP. But even after elapse of one year three months and on several request’s made by the complainant the OP failed to deliver possession of the said flat. In the above circumstances , the complainant has been constrained to initiate the instant case for getting Redressal together with the prayer for direction upon the Ops to complete the unfinished works or alternatively to refund the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental pain and agony.
OP No.1 to 4 have been contested the case by filing written version, where they denied all the material allegations. They also stated that they are the owner of the land on which the construction of multi-storied building has been done by the OP Nos. 5 to 9 as developers with them this Ops made agreement, so this OPs conveyancing the title of the property, not liability of construction . Op nos. 5 to 9 are the responsible to the purchaser/complainant for construction works. With the above, these OPs have prayed for dismissal of the case.
OP Nos. 5,8 and 9 in their written version have also denied all the material allegations made by the complainant. Further, the Ops stated that the instant case is not maintainable because the complainant in his complaint did not avert about the cause of action of the case and the complainant is the responsible to prove his case. So, these Ops also have prayed for dismissal of the case.
OP Nos. 6 & 7 did not appear in this case. So, this proceeding runs ex parte against OP Nos. 6 & 7.
It is pertinent to mention that all parties have agreed to proceed with the case on the basis of pleadings and documents submitted before the Forum.
It appears from the record that after filing of written version just before the hearing of argument, on 11.07.2013, subsequently the complainant has filed a petition contending inter alia that the case has been amicably settled in between the complainant and OP Nos. 5 to 9 on payment of Rs.1, 00,000/- (Rs.70, 000/- by Demand Draft and Rs.30, 000/- by cash) and the complainant has no claim against OP Nos. 5 to 9.
On the same day and on same order shows that on behalf of the OP Nos. 5,8 & 9 , a DD for Rs.70,000/- dt. 12.06.13 being No. 558828 in favour of the complainant/Nupur Tewari is filed and the same DD was withdrawn by the complainant on 12.08.2013 with her signature and identified by the Ld. Advocate for the complainant. Thus, the case was partly disposed of against OP Nos. 5 to 9, but at the same time the case proceeds with the OP Nos. 1 to 4.
However, at the time of hearing the OP Nos. 1 to 4 stating that they are the owner of the land and conveyancing the title of the property, so they are not responsible for Agreement of Sale, construction and delivery of possession and as because they are not liable to pay compensation to the complainant. On the other hand, there was no averment in the complaint by the complainant regarding payment on the part of OP No.1 to 4, and even not a single document was produced in support of this matter.
On the above discussion along with the record, we have no other option but to conclude that OP Nos. 1 to 4 are not liable to pay compensation to the complainant. So, the proceeding against them will be dismissed.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Consumer Complaint No. 05/2013 be and the same is dismissed against the OP No.1 to 4 and disposed of against OP Nos. 5 to 9 being withdrawn by the complainant due to amicable settlement.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under registered post with A/D to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum. Redressal Forum. Redressal Forum.
Murshidabad. Murshidabad. Murshidabad.
