DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C.C. No. 59/2020
Date of Filing Date of Admission Date of Disposal
16.09.2020 12.10.2020 28.12.2023
Complainant/s:- | - SRI ASOKE KUMAR MUKHERJEE, S/o Lt. Sunil Kumar Mukherjee, aged about 66 years, occupation – retired person and
- SRI ARPAN MUKHERJEE, S/o Sri Asoke Kumar Mukherjee, aged about 27 years, occupation – Service, both are by faith – Hindu, permanently residing at : Mukherjee Villa, Itna Colony, Post – Barasat, Pin code – 700124, P.S. – Barasat, District – North 24 Parganas.
-Vs- |
Opposite Party/s:- | - MAUSAM ENTERPRISE, Proprietor Sri Jayanta Basu, S/o Late Shyamal Basu, having office at - 340, Kabi Sukanta Road, P.S. – Barasat, Kolkata – 700126, and Residing at C/o Bhaskar Sengupta, 81/1, Pioneer Park, Lichutala, P.S. – Barasat, Kolkata – 700124.
- SRI ARABINDO CHAKRABORTY, S/o Lt. Abanimohan Chakraborty, residing at 1397, Santi Nibas, Deshopriyo Road, Kolkata – 700126.
- SRI BADAL CHAKRABORTY, S/o Lt. S/o Lt. Abanimohan Chakraborty, residing at 1397, Santi Nibas, Deshopriyo Road, Kolkata – 700126.
|
P R E S E N T :- Sri. Daman Prosad Biswas……….President.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu…………………. Member.
JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER
Complainants above named filed this complaint against the aforesaid Opposite Parties praying for a direction for execution and registration of deed of conveyance in terms of the agreement dated 15/06/2015, refund the plumbing expenses and other reliefs.
They alleged in the petition of complaint that O.P No. 1 is a developer and O.P No. 2 and 3 is land owner. Complainant was agreed to purchase a flat measuring 870 sq.ft. covered area 685 sq.ft. + service area 137 sq.ft. + stair and lift area 48 sq.ft. with the consideration of Rs. 19,79,250/-. Complainants paid the entire amount in favour of the O.Ps and they handed over the possession of the said flat in favour of the Complainants. But inspite of several requests O.P No. 1-4 not yet executed the sale-deed in favour of the Complainants. Complainants sent a legal notice to the O.Ps but they did not pay any heed. Hence, the Complainants filed this case.
On perusal of record we find that O.Ps had received notice on 22/01/2021 and 27/01/2021 but O.Ps did not file any W/V till 13/04/2022. Accordingly we find that O.P No. 1-3 not yet filed W/V within the statutory period. The present case is running ex-parte against them.
TRIAL
During trial Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief.
Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./
: : 2 : :
C.C. No. 59/2020
DOCUMENTS
At the time of filing of this case Complainants filed the following documents:-
- Agreement for flat sale………..xerox (1 sheet).
- Money receipt in respect of Rs. 6,00,000/-……1 page (Xerox).
- Money receipt for the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-……1 sheet (Xerox).
- Money receipt for the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-……1 sheet (Xerox).
- Money receipt for the amount of Rs. 9,74,000/-……1 sheet (Xerox).
- Money receipt for the amount of Rs. 3,05,250/-……1 sheet (Xerox).
- Copy of 2 cheques for the amount of Rs. 6 lakhs & 1 lakh...1 sheet (Xerox).
- Copy of cheque amounting to Rs. 9,74,000/- and Rs. 3,05,250/-…1 sheet (Xerox).
- Details of cost of plumbing works amounting to Rs. 20,373/- (Xerox).
- Advocate’s letter dated 01/09/2020……..2 sheets (Xerox).
BNA
Complainant filed BNA.
Decision with Reasons
We have carefully gone through the petition of complaint filed by the Complainants and affidavit-in-chief filed by the Complainants and documents on record. Documents of the Complainants were verified at the time of hearing argument. We have heard the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant.
On perusal of agreement for sale we find that both the parties to this case were entered into an agreement relating to sale of a flat with the consideration of Rs. 19,79,250/-
On perusal of copy of cheques and money receipt we find that Complainant has paid the said amount in favour of the O.P No. 1. So it is clear before us that Complainants discharged their liability.
It is the allegation of the Complainants that inspite of repeated requests even on legal notice O.Ps not yet executed sale-deed. Complainants made several requests to the O.Ps but they did not execute sale-deed in their favour till date. Complainants in support of their case filed affidavit-in-chief which is nothing but unchallenged testimony and we do not fine any reason to disbelieve the same.
On perusal of record we find that Opposite Party No. 1-3 are the service provider and Complainants are the consumers.
We also find that aforesaid act of the O.P No. 1-3 are nothing but deficiency in service.
Having regard to the aforesaid discussion it is clear before us that Complainants have able to established their grievance by sufficient documents beyond reasonable doubt and they are entitled to reliefs as per their prayer.
In the result, the present case succeeds.
Contd. To Page No. 3 . . . ./
: : 3 : :
C.C. No. 59/2020
Hence ,
It is ordered,
That the present case vide no. C.C./59/2020 be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the O.P No. 1-3 with cost of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) to be paid by O.P No. 1-3 in favour of the Complainants.
O.P No. 1-3 are directed to execute the sale-deed in favour of the Complainants within 45 days from this date, failing which Complainants shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
O.P No. 1-3 are further directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation in favour of the Complainants, failing which Complainants shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
Let a plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.
Dictated and Corrected by me
President
Member President
