DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C.C. No. 265/2021
Date of Filing:- Date of Admission:- Date of Disposal:-
29.11.2021 14.12.2021 08.08.2023
Complainant/s:- | Sri Dipjyoti Maitra, S/o Sankar Kumar Maitra, R/o Basundhara Abasan, 35, Banerjee Para Road, P.O. Talpukur, P.S. Barrackpore, Kolkata – 700123. =Vs.= |
Opposite Parties/s:- | - Smt. Puspa Das, W/o Late Ratan Das
- Sri Ashim Das, S/o Late Ratan Das
- Sri Asish Das, S/o Late Ratan Das
All residing at Harish Chandra Dutta Road, P.O. Sukchar, P.S. Khardah, Dist. North 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700115 - Smt. Alpana Das, W/o Sri Dulal Das, D/o Late Ratan Das, Residing at Dr. Lalmohan Banerjee Road, Shyamapally, P.O. Panihati, P.S. Khardah, Kolkata – 700114
- Smt. Dipa Mondal, W/o Hemanta Mondal, Residing at Nandanik Apartment, First Floor, Harish Chandra Dutta Road, P.O. Panihati, P.S. Khardah, Dist. North 24 Parganas.
- M/S. S. B. Enterprise,
Office Address: 1/34, Purbapally, P.O. Sodepur, P.S. Khardah, Kolkata – 70010, represented by it proprietor Sri Sudipta Basu, S/o Jyotsnamoy Bose, Residing at 1/34, Purbapally, P.O. Sodepur, P.S. Khardah, Kolkata – 700110. |
P R E S E N T :- Smt. Monisha Shaw..………… Member.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu…. …………. Member.
JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER
This Complainant filed this complaint case U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 along with section 5 of Limitation Act. The Section 5 of Limitation Act was allowed.
The brief fact of the case is Complainant is a bank employee and O.P Nos. 1 to 5 is landowner and O.P No. 6 is Developer. Complainant and O.Ps entered into an agreement on 12/07/2017 for sale a flat on the 1st floor North East West corner, under Mouza – Sukchar, J. L. No. 9, Dag No. 3314, L.R. Khatian – 1370, P.S. – Khardah, District – North 24 Parganas with the limits of Panihati Municipality, Ward No. 2, Holding No. 38, Harish Chandra Dutta Road for a consideration amount of Rs. 15,75,000/-. The Complainant paid Rs. 3,15,000/- vide Cheque No. 764700 in favour of the Opposite Parties which has been acknowledged by the O.P and mentioned in the said agreement dated 12/07/2017. The details of suit property are mentioned in schedule –‘B’ of the Agreement and Complaint. In agreement Opposite Parties agreed to hand over the possession of said suit property within 24 months and it was also agreed that after full payment of said full consideration money O.Ps shall handover the suit property and register the deed of conveyance in the name of the Complainant. On several occasions Complainant requested the Opposite Parties to receive the rest amount of consideration money and get the deed of conveyance registered but O.P were reluctant to execute the deed of conveyance and received balance consideration money. Complainant served demand notice on 10/01/2021 through Advocate but in vain. Compelling circumstances Complainant filed this case. This case is within the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction of this commission. Hence, this Commission has ample power to try this case. Notices were served upon Opposite Parties. O.P filed written version. In written version O.P is not denied for receiving advance money and conditions for said agreement for sale.
Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./
: : 2 : :
C.C. No. 265/2021
O.P No. 1 to 5 filed written version and in written version O.P stated that “Mintu Mallick has started construction for finishing the development project and all the persons related with the said constructional work have communicated but Complainant did not meet with the O.P No. 1 to 5. The Complainant prays either to receive balance consideration amount to execute the deed of conveyance and register the same or refused the said advance amount of Rs. 3,15,000/- & others. The case is heard ex-parte as neither O.Ps nor their advocate was present at the time of argument.
Following issued were framed for the purpose of decision:-
- Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief / reliefs in this case.
Reason for Judgment:-
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as nature and character of this case all the points are interlinked to each other and as such all the points are taken up together for consideration.
As the Complainant paid Rs. 3,15,000/- for purchased a flat as part of consideration money therefore the Complainant is the consumer as per provision of Consumer Protection Act and as the Opposite Parties are service provider but O.P did not make his part and did not handed over the flat to the Complainant as agreed in agreement for sale deed which would be treated as deficiency in service. Complainant did not handed over the suit property as agreed which is also deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. As O.P received the money so they are liable to provide his service but as they did not provide their service which would be treated as deficiency of service.
Hence,
it is ordered,
That the case being no. C.C./265/2021 be and the same is allowed on contest and O.Ps were not present at the time of argument, hence the case heard ex-parte argument.
It is hereby directed the Opposite Parties after receiving balance consideration money of Rs. 12,60,000/- to execute the deed of conveyance and register the same. Alternatively refund the earnest money amounting of Rs. 3,15,000/- with 6% interest from the date of receipt till recovery to the Complainant within two months from the date of delivery of judgment.
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 and Corrected by me
Member
Member Member
