Presented by:
Minakshi Chakraborty, Presiding Member.
Brief facts of the case: This case has been filed U/s. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainant stating that the ops entered into an agreement with the complainant on 12.2.2021on condition mentioned therein that the complainant will leave the medicine shop room which the complainant runs for his livelihood, to the ops and in return the ops will hand over the schedule mentioned shop room in the newly constructed building to the complainant within five months from the date of the said agreement. As per contention of the complainant , he is a tenant under the ops and was also a tenant under the previous owner of the schedule mentioned property. Suddenly, the ops approached the complainant with an assurance to shift his medicine shop to any other place for five months so that ops can construct a new building thereon and after five months the ops will hand over the complainant a new shop room of the same value and as it is mentioned in the schedule and the value of the old shop room is considered here as consideration for the schedule mentioned shop room. Accordingly an agreement between the complainant and the ops was signed on 12.2.2021 and thereafter the complainant shifted his medicine shop room to other place on rent and paying rent there every month till today even after the expiration of one year of the said agreement entered into. Of late the ops informed that his medicine shop room is ready in the schedule mentioned property and it would soon be handed over to the complainant but out of curiosity the complainant went to see the said shop room in the schedule mentioned property and he found the shop room was only 5’* 4’5” that means 22.5 sq.ft. which is incapable of running a medicine shop and utterly unmatched the schedule property mentioned in the said agreement. Them the complainant discussed his grievance with the ops but they were not ready to pay heed to him. Being aggrieved the complainant sent a notice to the ops through his ld. Advocate on 25.1.2022 demanding to hand over the possession of the shop room as mentioned in the said agreement but all in vain.
Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite parties to register the schedule mentioned shop room and to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as litigation cost and to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- for compensation.
Evidence on record
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition.
Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the parties
Complainant have filed separate written notes of argument. As per BNA the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of complainant shall have to be taken into consideration for disposal of the instant proceeding.
Heard argument of complainant at length. In course of argument ld. Lawyer of complainant gave emphasis on evidence and documents produced by the them.
From the discussion hereinabove, we find the following issues/points for consideration.
Issues/points for consideration
- Whether the complainant is the consumer?
- Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the case?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Issue no.1:
In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.The point is thus answered in the affirmative.
Issue no.2:
Both the complainants and the opposite parties are residents/having their office addresses within the district of Hooghly and the claims do not exceed the pecuniary limit of this commission. This point is thus disposed of accordingly.
Issue nos. 3 & 4:
Both the issues are taken up simultaneously for the sake of convenience.
At the very outset it is to be mentioned here that the case is running ex parte against both the OPs vide order dated 16.08.2022.
The OPs entered into an agreement with the complainant 0n 19/2/21 with regard to one shop room measuring about 110sq ft which was running by the complainant at all the material point of time at the scheduled property. Since the OPs wish to construct a building over the said scheduled mentioned property, the complainant agreed to such agreement dated 12/2/21 where it has been clearly written that the OPs are bound to handover the old shop room into a new one to the complainant and the expenses shall be borne by the OPs, more so the shop room will be handed over to the complainant within five months from the date of the agreement and the complainant after getting the shop room from the OPs will register the said shop room in his name and in that event the entire expenses shall be borne by the complainant.
As per the terms of the said agreement dated 12/2/21 the shop room in question would be measuring about 15 ft 10 inch in length and 6 ft 9inch in breath and the complainant has to leave 1 ft in the northern side of the shop room. The said agreement has been annexed here which bears the signature of the OPs. But the OPs did not handover the possession of the said shop room to the complainant till date; the complainant sent a legal notice dated 25/1/22 to get handover of the possession of the said shop room as per terms of the agreement, in reply the OPs also sent one legal notice dated 8/2/22 denying the existence of any such agreement with regard to construction and handing over of the shop room. The OPs further denied that they ever know the complainant. The said legal notice has also been annexed by the complainant.
Though the OPs did not appear in the instant case to defend their case but the said agreement dated 12/2/21 which bears the signature of the OPs, the two letters of both sides advocates which are being annexed by the complainant substantiate the case of the complainant that the complainant is entitled to get the shop room measuring about 15’10” * 6’9”,the cover area approximately 110 sq ft in the ground floor lying under L.R Dg No. 161 and L.R Khatian 260 an 443,mouza Nabagram, J.L No. 12 in P.S Serampore,Baidyabati Municipality, ward no. 1, District- Hooghly from the OPs along with compensation.
Both the issues are thus disposed of.
Hence,
ordered
that the complaint case no. 73 of 2022 be and the same is decreed exparte against both the Ops.
The ops are directed to execute and register deed of conveyance and also to deliver actual possession to the complainant of the shop room measuring about 15’10” * 6’9”,the cover area approximately 110 sq ft in the ground floor lying under L.R Dg No. 161 and L.R Khatian 260 an 443,mouza Nabagram, J.L No. 12 in P.S Serampore, Baidyabati Municipality, ward no. 1, District- Hooghly within 45 days from date, and the expenses for registration will be borne by the complainant; in default the complainant is at liberty to take recourse to law.
The complainant do get Rs 10000/ for litigation cost, Rs. 25000/ for mental harassment and agony and Rs. 50000/ for loss of business from the Ops within 45 days from date, in default the complainant is at liberty to take recourse to law.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.
