DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C.C. No.73/2019
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
28.02.2019 11.03.2019 15.05.2023
Complainant/s:- | Sri Ramdas Biswas, S/o. Late Narayan Chandra Biswas, Government Housing Estate, 25/3, Raja Manindra Road Block-N, Flat No. 31, P.S. Tala, Kolkata-700110. = Vs= Mr. Sourav Bhattachayya, Proprietor, M/s. Universal Projects, 3, R.N. Tagore Road, P.O. Sodepur, P.S. Khardah, Kolkata-700110, alternatively at flat No.2B(3rd Floor), 14, MIG Govt. Housing Estate, P.O. Sodepur, Rs. Khardah, Kolkata-700110. |
Opposite Party/s:- |
P R E S E N T :- Smt. Monisha Shaw …………………. Member.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu …………………. Member.
JUDGMENT
Complainant filed this case u/12 read with Section 13 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The facts of the case is complainant booked a flat measuring about 670 Sq.ft situated at Mouza- Dakshin Nimta, Dag No. 3646, Khatian No. 2686, Holding No. 25, Dist- North 24 Parganas being flat No. 201within the project Universal Ajaya at 68/1, Olai Chanditala Road, Nimta, Kolkata-700049. The complainant paid as earnest money of Rs. 1,30,000/- out of Rs. 15,41,000/-. One sale agreement was made on 01.03.2015 by and between the parties. The O.P assured to deliver possession within July, 2015.On 01.06.2015 after final measurement it was found that the super built up area is 619 Sq.ft as such the consideration value was settled Rs. 14,23,700/-. Complainant paid total Rs. 12,32,007/- to the opposite parties. As per agreement for sale O.P did not handed over the said flat to the complainant. The description of the flat is mentioned in the complaint. Even after payment of Rs. 12,32,007/- and even agreed to pay the balance amount to the complainant at the time of registration. The opposite party refused to execute the deed of conveyance and refused to hand over the possession. The O.P(s) failed to provide drainage, sewerage line, equipments and fixtures in respect of toilet, kitchen, electric fittings etc. Therefore complainant is suffering heavy pecuniary loss since house rent is being deducted from monthly pension of the complainant as such complainant has to fetch the unaccountable expenses from his pension account. On 12.06.2017 complainant sent a demand notice through advocate for delivery of possession but in vain. Being aggrieved by the complainant filed a case before Hon’ble S.C.D.R.C being C.C. No. 788/2018. Hon’ble S.C.D.R.C was pleased to reject the same with observation as
Contd/-
C.C. No.73/2019
:: 2 ::
‘In view of the above the complaint is rejected being not amenable before this commission. However, this order will not debar the complainant to approach a competent Forum in accordance to law’. The order is not annexed with the case but there is no reason to disbelieve as the complainant states the facts swearing by affidavit. After filing this case, notices were posted. Lastly newspaper public notices were also issued.
The complainant’s case is within pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction of this commission. Hence, this commission has ample power to try this case. The O.P is not appeared this case hence heard exparte.
Issue framed for the purpose of decision
1. Whether the case is maintainable or not?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or reliefs in this case or not?
Reason for Judgment
Considering the petition of the complaint and evidence of the complainant and documents filed by the complainant we find that the complainant made an agreement with opposite party for purchase a flat which clearly mentioned in the schedule of the complaint. Complainant paid total Rs.12,32,007/- out of Rs. 14,23,700/- for purchase a flat measuring about 619 sq.ft super built up area with common amenities. Complainant was ready to pay the balance amount but the O.P did not execute and register the deed of conveyance and also did not hand over the possession of the flat. Complainant sends demand notice through Advocate but in vain. In the instant case complainant is a consumer and opposite party is service provider. But the opposite party fails to provide his service. We find that the complainant is proved the case and is entitled to get decree in his favour.
Hence, it is ordered,
that the case be and the same being No.73of 2019 is allowed and heard exparte as the O.P is not appeared this case.
It is hereby directed to opposite party to execute the Deed of Conveyance of suit property and registered before proper authority after receiving the balance consideration money and shall handed over the possession of suit property to the complainant and issue possession letter and completion certificate with Rs. 20,000/- for litigation cost and mental agony within two months from the date 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 & Corrected by me
Member
Member Member
