DATE OF FILING : 29-06-2012.
DATE OF S/R : 20-07-2012.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 28-09-2012.
Sri Sankar Ghosh,
son of late Kanailal Ghosh,
of 81/1, Bangalpara, 2nd Bye Lane, P.S. Shibpur,
District –Howrah--------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
Smt. Ramarani Karar,
w/o. Sri Prabhat Ranjan Karar,
of Government Quarter Block,
H-1, Flat No. 1, 197, Andul Road,
P.S. Shibpur, 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 U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986,
as amended against the O.P. alleging deficiency in service U/S 2( 1 )( g ), 2( 1 )( o ) of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant, Sankar Ghosh has prayed for direction upon the O.P., Smt. Rama Rani Karar for execution of the sale deed in favour of the complainant with respect to the property mentioned in the schedule and for compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- together with litigation cost and prayer for permanent injunction as the o.p. in spite of receiving the total consideration money of Rs. 4,50,000/- vide agreement dated 06-10-2010, ultimately refused to execute and register the sale deed on the plea that the consideration has been raised to 6,00,000/- from Rs. 4,50,000/-.
2. The o.p. by filing written version challenged the maintainability of the
complaint and contended interalia that the entire story of the complainant is imaginary, false and motivated to squeeze extra money from the o.p.; that the case is barred by the provision of Registration Act. So the case should be dismissed.
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. ?
iii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
4. Point No. 1 -
The o.p. in challenging the maintainability of the instant case has contended that the case is barred by the provisions of Registration Act and Law of Specific Relief Act. Apparently, there cannot be any dispute that the instant complaint case under the purview of the Transfer of Property Act. Likewise, Specific Relief Act and the provision of Registration Act also stand as the bar against the instant complaint. But at the same time we are to bear min that Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was incorporated only to establish that the provision of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, this Forum is to look into the matter if the o.p. in the garb of provisions of substantial laws indulge in unfair trade practice and misappropriate the hard-earned money of the complainant. With this observation we are of the view that the complaint is quite maintainable. So the point is accordingly disposed of.
5. Point Nos. 2 & 3 -
Both the points are taken up together for consideration. The agreement dated 06-10-2010 was valid upto 30-04-2011. But this date i.e. 30-04-2011 cannot serve as the barrier in getting the relief as prayed for. This is because the o.p. acknowledged the balance consideration amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 09-07-2011 and herself extended the tenure of the agreement beyond 30-04-2011.
6. There cannot be any dispute with respect to the acceptance of the total
consideration money of Rs. 4,50,000/-. On the back page of the agreement the o.p. Rama Rani Karar in presence of witnesses recorded her signature on 09-07-2011 acknowledging the balance payment and declaring that she had no further claim from the complainant with respect to the transaction. On several occasions, the complainant requested the o.p. to execute the deed in his favour. But the o.p. on several pretexts refused to act upon to the terms of the agreement. On the contrary she made several attempts to dispossess the complainant from the property on which the complainant is in possession since 06-10-2010. Complainant lodged G.D. being 580 dated 03-06-2012 apprehending dispossession by the men and agents of the o.p. The refusal on the part of the o.p. to execute the deed of conveyance on the plea that the total consideration amount has been raised to Rs. 6,00,000/- from Rs. 4,50,000/- is thoroughly arbitrary and to unfair trade practice.
In the result, we are of the view that this is a fit case for granting relief to the complainant as prayed for. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 66 of 2012 ( HDF 66 of 2012 ) be and the same is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p.
The O.P. be directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance with respect to the suit property in favour of the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.
The o.p. do pay a compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant for causing mental pain, agony and prolonged harassment.
The complainant is entitled to the 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.
