West Bengal

StateCommission

RP/50/2023

Mukesh Jha - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prasenjit Das - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Kaushik Mundra, Mr. D.Thakura

13 Dec 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
WEST BENGAL
11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087
 
Revision Petition No. RP/50/2023
( Date of Filing : 06 Apr 2023 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 01/02/2023 in Case No. CC/209/2022 of District Kolkata Unit-IV)
 
1. Mukesh Jha
S/o, Lt Upender Jha. 130, Raja Rajendralal Mitra Road, Kolkata- 700 085, P.S.- Beliaghata.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Prasenjit Das
S/o, Gobardhan Das. 101, Raja Rajendralal Mitra Road, Kolkata- 700 085, P.S.- Beliaghata.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL PRESIDENT
 
PRESENT:Mr. Kaushik Mundra, Mr. D.Thakura, Advocate for the Petitioner 1
 Ms.Punam Chaudhary,Soni Ojha,Surya Mukherjee, Advocate for the Respondent 1
Dated : 13 Dec 2024
Final Order / Judgement

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

  1. Challenge is to the order No. 7 dated 01/02/2023 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sealdah ( in short, ‘the District  Commission’) in connection with consumer complaint case No. CC/209/2022 whereby the Learned District Commission was pleased to allow the M.A. application being No. M.A./21/2023 and the opposite party was restrained from transferring, alienating, creating any third party interest in respect of the case flat.
  1. The respondent as a complainant filed a complaint case being No. 209/2022 praying for the following reliefs :-

“a) An order directing the opposite party to handover possession of the flat (more fully described in the Schedule written hereunder) upon receipt of the actual due amount of Rs.6,00,000/- and to execute conveyance in favour of the complainant alternatively;

to refund the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- paid till date to the opposite party together with interest @18% p.a.;

b) An order for payment of a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- towards compensation for delay in delivery of possession of the subject flat;

c) An order for further compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the mental agony, harassment, and cost to the complainant and for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party;

d) An order for payment of Rs.50,000/- towards litigation cost;

e) And to pass such further order or orders as the Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper.”

3. The appellant / opposite party entered appearance in this case and was contesting the case by filing written version. During pendency of the case the complainant / respondent filed an application under section 38(8) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 praying for passing an order of temporary injunction restraining the opposite party from transferring, alienating and creating any third party interest in respect of the case as mentioned in the schedule of the consumer case. The Learned District Commission after hearing both sides was pleased to allow the said application under section 38(8) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the order impugned.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order the opposite party as an appellant has preferred the revisional application.

5. Heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the parties. Perused the record. Also perused the memo of revisional application and other relevant documents.

6. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record and the instant application under section 38(8) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and other relevant documents, it appears to me that the complainant / respondent has been able to satisfy me, prima facie, by Agreement for Sale dated 22/10/2020 that the parties of this revisional application have entered into an Agreement for selling the case property to the complainant at a consideration of Rs.16,00,000/- on 02/10/2020. So, I am of the opinion that if the case flat is transferred during the pendency of this case to third party, then this complainant / respondent would suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated by money.

7. In view of the facts and circumstances and considering the injury and balance of convenience / inconvenience I am of the opinion that the Learned District Commission has rightly allowed the Misc. case being No. M.A./21/2023 by which the opposite party was restrained from transferring, alienating and creating any third party interest in respect of the case flat.

8. In view of the discussion above, the impugned order passed by the Learned District Commission is within the jurisdiction which is not bad in law. There is no scope of interference with the impugned order. Accordingly, the revisional application is dismissed on contest. Considering the facts and circumstances there will be no order as to costs.

9. The Learned District Commission is directed to proceed with the complaint case and decide the matter as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

10. Let a copy of this order be sent down to the Learned District Commission at once for information.

11. Office to comply.

12. Consequently, the I.A. being No. 823/2023 stands disposed of.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL]
PRESIDENT
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.