DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C.C. No.225/2022
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
22.07.2022 05.08.2022 15.05.2023
Complainant/s:- | Mr. Goutam Kumar Chakraborty, S/o. Late Haripada Chakraborty, Block A/6, Flat No. 105, Prasad Nagar, 27, BT Road, Kolkata-700058, P.S. Belghoria, Dist- North 24 Parganas. = Vs |
Opposite Party/s: | 1.Saket Promoters Private Limited, 46 B.B. Ganguly Street, 1st floor, Room No. 4, P.S. Bowbazar, Kolkata-700012, represented its Partners 2.Sri Shashi Kant Khetan, S/o. Late Krishnalal Khetan 3. Saket Khaitan, S/o. Sri Shashi Kant Khetan both are 46, B.B. Ganguly Street, 1st Floor, Room No.4, P.S. Bowbazar, Kolkata-700012. |
P R E S E N T :- Smt. Monisha Shaw …………………. Member.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu …………………. Member.
JUDGMENT
Complainant filed this case u/s 34(1), 34 (2) (d) and 39 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The brief facts of the case is as follows:-
The complainant booked a flat from the opposite parties No. 5B, on 5th floor measuring area about 1462 Sq. ft with garage at premises No. 127, B.T. Road, Kolkata-700108 for a consideration value total Rs. 58,00,000/-. The complainant paid total Rs. 11,60,000/- to the O.Ps. Before execution of agreement for sale complainant requested the opposite parties to supply all relevant documents. The developer provided some documents like deed of conveyance, project report, search report, notarized power of attorney, Board resolution, mutation certificate of the land but did not provide registered power of attorney. In spite of several requests by the complainant through mail O.Ps did no supply any registered power of attorney. as the registered power of attorney
Contd/-2
C.C. No.225/2022
:: 2 ::
could not supply by the O.Ps hence complainant did no sign the agreement for sale. Therefore the complainant requested the O.Ps to refund the money Rs. 11,60,000/- which paid as advance money. Through mail several mail sent to O.P. members but they did not refund the money. They refused to refund the advance money. The Advocate for complainants submits that hence the complainant filed this case for refund money of Rs.11,60,000/- and other reliefs. The complainant submits that Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2011 in a specific case held that without registered power of attorney, a flat or any kind of immovable property cannot b registered. Section 32 sub-section 23 of part VI of Registration Act, 1908 states that for registration of Deed of Sale, power of attorney must be registered which is held in Ashok Kumar –Vs-Jetmal Motilal (AIR 2010 (NOC)36 Bom.
However, without Registered power of attorney complainant is disagree to execute agreement for sale deed. Complainant went to refund his advanced money-but in vain. O.Ps issued money receipt for sale the said flat.
Issue framed for the purpose of decision
1. Whether the case is maintainable or not?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or reliefs in this case or not?
Reason for Judgment
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as nature and character of the case all the points are interlinked with each other and as such all the points are taken up together for consideration.
The O.Ps did not turn up even after service notice upon them. Hence the case heard exparte. From the document it proved that Rs. 2,00,000/- received by M/s. Saket Promoters Ltd as booking amount, the receipt was issued by the O.P. – member. Thereafter, complainant paid money by cheque. Complainant paid total Rs.11,60,000/- for purchase of flat but O.P. members could not provide registered power of attorney, thereafter the complainant disagreed to purchase the flat and requested to refund advance money of Rs. 11,60,000/- but the opposite party did not refund the same.
In the instant case as complainant intend to purchase a flat from promoter and paid advance money for purchase the same hence he is a consumer as per C.P.Act, 2019 and the O.P members did not provide service as they could not provide registered power of attorney from the land lord.
As the paid amount is Rs. 11,60,000/- so this case is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this commission and also within the territorial jurisdiction of this commission. Hence this commission has ample power to try this case. The complainant proves his case.
Contd/-3
C.C. No.225/2022
:: 3 ::
All the points are considered.
Considering the facts and circumstances
Hence,
it is ordered,
that the case be and the same being No. C.C. No. 225/2022 is allowed exparte as O.P is not appeared even after receiving notice. The opposite parties are directed to refund the entire advance amount with 6% interest p.a. from the date of recipt of money till recovery. The O.p.s shall comply the decree within two month from the date of delivery of judgement. Failing which the complainant has liberty to file execution case as per law.
Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.
Dictated & Corrected by me
Member
Member Member
