0DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C. C. CASE NO. 92/2018
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
28.02.2018 07.03.2018 15.03.2022
Complainant/s:- | SHIWMANGAL MAHATO KOIRI, S/o Late Jagmohan Mahato Koiri, Flat No. – ‘G’, 4th Floor, Niladri Bhaban, Ghoshpara Road, Ichapur, Kanthadhar, P.O. – Ichapur Nawabganj, P.S. – Noapara, Dist – North 24 Parganas, Pin – 743144, West Bengal. = Vs.= |
Opposite Party/s:- | - SMT. SABITA PANDIT, W/o Sri Bhuban Pandit, Residing at 242/A, Naskarpara Road, P.O. & P.S. – Thakurpukur, Kolkata – 700082.
- SMT. KAMALA DEVIJAIN, W/o Shri Manik Chand Jain of 134/4, M.G. Road, P.S. – Jorasanko, Kolkata – 700007.
- SRI GOUTAM BRAHMA CHARYA, S/o Shri Durgada Bhahmacharya, P.O. – Noapara, District – North 24 Parganas.
|
P R E S E N T :- Shri Debasis Mukhopadhyay…………President.
:- Smt. Monisha Shaw …………………. Member.
JUDGMENT / FINAL ORDER
The Complainant’s case in brief is that the Complainant and Opposite Parties entered into unregistered agreement dated 24/12/2004 by which it was agreed that the Complainant shall purchase the subject flat fully described in the schedule of the complaint and the Complainant paid Rs. 5,50,000/- to the O.P. No. 3 / Developer but thereafter the Opposite Parties did not execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the Complainants though requested several times. Hence, the Complainant filed this case to direct the Opposite Parties to execute and the register sale deed in favour of the Complainant in respect of the subject flat failing which the sale deed be executed according to law and also to direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs. 1 lac for harassment and cost.
The O.P. No. 1 and 2 contested the case by filing W/V denying the allegations of the Complainant. The O.P. No. 1 and 2 contended that liability or responsibility as alleged by the Complainant arises after owners allocation is delivered by the Developer / O.P. No. 3 and unless such obligation is done by the Developer, nobody can ask the owner / O.P. No. 1 and 2 to discharge their obligation. The O.P. No. 1 and 2 have stated that there is no cause of action against the O.P. No. 1 and 2 and O.P. No. 1 and 2 prayed for dismissal of the case.
O.P. No. 3 / Developer did not contest the case. From the contentions of the parties, it appears that points for consideration in this case are whether the complaint is maintainable or there is cause of action and whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for or any other reliefs in this case.
Decision with Reason:-
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submitted that the Opposite Parties failed to execute and register deed in favour of the Complainants inspite of receipt of the entire
Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . .
: : 2 : :
C. C. CASE NO. 92/2018
consideration money and therefore the Opposite Parties should be directed to execute and register the deed in favour of the Complainant failing which this Consumer Commission may execute and register the deed according to law.
Ld. Advocate for the O.P. No. 1 and 2 submitted that the O.P. No. 1 and 2 being the owners have no obligation and the Developer / O.P. No. 3 is responsible for doing the job as prayed for by the Complainant and therefore they prayed for dismissal of the case against the O.P. No. 1 and 2.
Considering the contentions of the parties, we find that there is agreement between the Complainant on the one hand and the O.P. No. 1 and 2 / owners and the O.P. No. 3 / Developers as alleged by the Complainant. The Complainant also proved that he paid the entire consideration money to the O.P. No. 3 / Developer. But inspite of receiving the entire consideration money the O.P. No. 3 / Developer failed and neglected to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the Complainants. Therefore, we find that the Complainant has specifically proved his case against the Opposite Parties. The O.P. no. 1 and 2 also cannot deny their responsibility in helping the Complainant to get the sale deed executed and registered in favour of the Complainant. The main responsibility lies with the O.P. No. 3 / Developer who accepted the entire consideration money but failed to do his job to execute and register the sale deed. Accordingly, we find that the Complainant has proved his case.
Hence,
It is ordered:-
That the case is allowed on contest against the O.P. No. 1 and 2 and ex – parte against O.P. No. 3. The Opposite Parties are directed to execute and register the saledeed in favour of the Complainant within 02 months from this date at the cost of the Complainant failing which the Complainant shall have liberty to get the deed executed through this District Commission according to law. The O.P. No. 3 / Developer is further directed to pay litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- and compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for harassment to the Complainant within 02 months from this date failing which the Complainant shall recover the amount by execution of this final order according to law.
Let a plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.
Dictated & Corrected by me
President
Member President
