Sri Madhai Chandra Adhikari,

son of late Manik Chandra Adhikari,

resident of  30, Ananta Ram Mukherjee Lane,

P.S. & District – Howrah. ---------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

Smt. Manju Singh,

wife of Ashok Kumar Singh,

resident of 5,  Girish  Banerjee Lane,

P.S. and District – Howrah.--------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  The instant case was filed by complainant, Madhai  Chandra Adhikari,  U/S 12

of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has  prayed for direction upon the o.p. to execute and register proper deed of  conveyance with respect to the suit property and to deliver possession of the same and to pay compensation of Rs. 2 lacs together with litigation costs as the O.P. in spite of receiving Rs. 80,000/- out of the total consideration money of Rs. 2,50,000/- as per the agreement dated 27-04-2011 did not execute the same after receiving the balance amount. 

2.                  The o.p. in her  written version challenged the maintainability of the complaint

and contended  interalia that this  Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the  complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the  Consumer Protection Act, 1986; that the O.P. is not a service provider ; that the Civil  Forum is the proper forum for adjudication of the dispute.  

3.         Upon pleadings of both parties three  points arose for determination :

i)                    Whether the complaint is maintainable ?

ii)                  Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

POINT NO. 1

4.      Ld. Lawyer for the O.P. argued that the complaint is not maintainable as the

complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of  Section 2(1)(d) of the  C.P. Act, 1986. In support of his argument two decisions reported in ( 2013 ) 3  WBLR ( C P S C ) 678 passed by Hon’ble State Commission and Hon’ble National Commission reported in ( 2013 ) 3 WBLR ( CPNC ) 681 were cited. But we are unable to invoke the citations as the former one relates to a case where there was no stipulation for rendering service to the complainant / appellant and the O.P. was a Government Organization unlike the case at hand where the parties are individuals. In the letter citation the agreement was with respect to agricultural land unlike the instant case. Moreover, the instant case is a clear cut case of a breach of contract arising out of a contract which is valid, legal and legally enforceable. A breach of contract itself may result in deficiency in service. The  C.P. Act, 1986 specifically provides for a special remedy for such grievance for compensation. This is in addition to the ordinary remedy available by way of approaching a civil court ( vide 1991 Vol. – 1 CPJ  page 40 ). When additional remedy is provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 it cannot be said that the same cannot be avoided because of availability of other remedies under general law or any other special law (vide 2001 vol. 1 CPJ page 422). Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 states that the provisions of this Act shall be in additional to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.  Therefore, we are of the view that the complaint is quite maintainable before this Forum. Accordingly, the point no. 1 is disposed of.

POINT NOS. 2 & 3 :

5.      Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. Though the O.P. in her

written version denied the allegations made in the complaint, did not speak a single word on the matter in dispute. This is a pointer to the fact that the O.P. has admitted the core substance of the allegations as made in the complaint.  Therefore, it stands vindicated that the O.P. received Rs. 80,000/- from the complainant as part payment of the total agreed amount of Rs 2,50,000/- as per agreement dated 27-04-2011 for sale of the schedule mentioned property and failed to execute the deed of conveyance after receiving the balance amount. Therefore, it is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed. Both the points are accordingly disposed of

      Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 191 of 2013 ( HDF  191 of 2013 )  be  and the same is allowed on contest with  costs  against  the O.P./ Manju Singh.   

      The O.P. be directed to execute the deed of conveyance with respect to the suit property within 30 days from the date of this order after receiving the balance amount.

      The o.p. do further pay a compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-  to the complainant for causing mental pain, agony and prolonged harassment.

      The complainant is  also entitled to a litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- from the o.p.

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (    T.K. Bhattacharya  )                                               (    T.K. Bhattacharya  )

  President,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                                   President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.

 (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                              (  P. K. Chatterjee )

 Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                                       Member,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.