DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C. C. CASE NO. 240/2018
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
01.06.2018 11.06.2018 08.04.2022
Complainant/s:- | Shri Debasis alias Debasish Nath, Son of Kartick Chandra Nath, 37, Bhagabati Charan Chatterjee, Post Office & Police Station – Belghoria, Kolkata – 700056. = Vs.= |
Opposite Party/s:- | - Smt. Manjusree Laha, Wife of Shri Bimal Chandra Laha
- Shri Bimal Chandra Laha, Both of 45/1, Sashi Bhusan Neogy Garden Lane, Police Station – Baranagar, Kolkata – 700036
- Smt. Nisha Rani De, Wife of Late Benoy Bhusan De
- Smt. Tandra De, Wife of Late Ranjit Dey
- Smt. Mamata De, daughter of Late Binoy Bhusan De
- Smt. Amita Das, Wife of Shri Rabin Das
3 to 6 all residing at 37, Bhagabati Charan Chatterjee, Post Office & Police Station – Belghoria, Kolkata – 700056. |
P R E S E N T :- Shri Debasis Mukhopadhyay…………President.
:- Smt. Monisha Shaw …………………. Member.
JUDGMENT / FINAL ORDER
This is a complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
The Complainant stated that the Complainant paid money for a flat as described in the schedule of the complaint for which the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 were the Developers and the O.P. Nos. 3 to 6 were owners and consideration money was fixed at Rs. 3,40,000/-. All along money was received by the O.P. No. 2. From the Complainant who paid Rs. 3,05,000/- out of total consideration of Rs. 3,40,000/-. The O.P. No. 2 has acknowledged the receipt of all the money paid by the Complainant.
After making payment, he went door to door of all the Opposite Parties for registration of the flat taking the rest amount Rs. 35,000/- but nothing was done by any of the Opposite Parties. The Complainant stated that he was given possession of the flat in the month of June 2010 but the same has not been registered in his favour for which the Complainant is suffering irreparable loss and injury. Hence, the Complainant filed this case praying for the order directing the Opposite Parties to register the flat in favour of the Complainant who is ready to pay the balance consideration amount and also compensation and cost.
The O.P. No. 3 and 5 contested the case by filing W/V. The O.P. no. 3 and 5 denied the material allegations of the Complainant. They stated that they were not at all liable for any compensation as claimed by the Complainant and the Complainant as one of the intending buyer of the developer must prove all his allegations that he paid any amount to the developer. This Opposite Parties stated that they are ready to execute any deed for transferring title to the intending buyers and if the Forum ordered, the O.Ps execute the deed in favour of Complainant. These O.Ps are ready to obey the same at the cost of the Complainant. Hence, the O.Ps prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
The O.P. No. 1, 2 and 4 did not contest the case.
Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./
: : 2 : :
C. C. CASE NO. 240/2018
From the contentions of the parties it appears that the points for consideration are whether the case is maintainable and whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submitted that O.Ps No. 1 and 2 acted as Developer and contesting O.P. Nos. 3 and 5 stated that they did not received any money but the Complainant as proved that he has paid Rs. 3,05,000/- out of total consideration of Rs. 3,40,000/-. He also submitted that O.P. No. 3 and 5 stated that they are ready and willing to register the deed at the cost of the Complainant. The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant prayed for the reliefs as per the complaint.
None appeared to argue the case on behalf of the O.P. at the time of argument.
It is found from the contention of the Complainant that he is paid Rs. 3,05,000/- for the subject flat out of total consideration of Rs. 3,40,000/-. He also stated that he is ready to pay the balance consideration of Rs. 35,000/-. He also stated that the O.Ps are not executing and registered the deed in favour of the Complainant. The Complainant further submitted that he was handed over possession of the subject flat in June 2010. Therefore, the Complainant prayed for execution and registration of the deed by the O.Ps. The O.P. Nos. 3 and 5 by submitting W/V submitted that they are ready and willing to execute and register the deed in favour of the Complainant at the cost of the Complainant. The other Opposite Parties did not denied or dispute the allegations of the Complainant as stated in the complaint. Therefore, we find that in absence of any evidence to the contrary by O.P. No. 1, 2 and 4 we find that the evidence of the Complainant is to be accepted has proved by the Complainant. Therefore, the Complainant is entitled to get the relief of execution and registration of the deed in his favour as prayed for in the complaint. The contesting O.P. No. 3 and 5 admitted that they are ready to execute and register the deed. Therefore, the issues are decided in favour of the Complainant.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
It is Ordered:-
That the case being No. C.C. 240/2018 be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P. No. 3 and 5 and ex-parte against the rest.
The O.Ps are directed to execute and register the deed in favour of the Complainant in respect of the subject flat as mentioned in the scheduled of the complaint at the cost of the Complainant after taking the balance consideration of Rs. 35,000/- from the Complainant within 02 months from this date failing which the Complainant is liberty to get the deed executed and registered according to law.
The O.P. No. 2 is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the Consumer Legal Aid Account within 02 months from this day failing which same is to be recovered according to law.
Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.
Dictated & Corrected by me
President
Member President
