District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly
PETITIONER
VS.
OPPOSITE PARTY
Complaint Case No.CC/88/2028
(Date of Filing:-05.07.2018)
Sri Biswajit Chatterjee
83, Amarendra Sarani
P.O. and P.S. Uttarpara,
District:- Hooghly, 712258.………..Complainant
-Versus
- Sri Dilip Kumar Das
104, Raja Peary Mohan Road
P.O. and P.S. Uttarpara,
Dist:- Hooghly, Pin-712258.
- M/S Shree Guru Constructions
Proprietor:- Joydeb Roychowdhury
57, Banerjeepara Street, Flat No. 401,
P.O. & P.S. Uttarpara,
District:- Hooghly, Pin:-712258 …….Opposite parties
Before:-
Mr. Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President
Mr. Debasis Bhattacharya, Member
Mrs. Babita Chaudhuri, Member
PRESENT:
Dtd. 16.10.2023
Final Order/Judgment
Debasis Bhattacharya:- Presiding Member
Having been aggrieved over and dissatisfied with the refusal of the opposite parties to execute the deed of registration in respect of a garage purchased by the Complainant from the opposite parties in pursuance of a prior agreement and against a consideration price ofRs.2,85,000/- , the instant complaint petition has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Firstly, it should be mentioned here, before making further discussion on the instant case, that the case runs ex parte against both the opposite parties, as, in spite of proper service of notices both the opposite parties preferred to eschew the proceedings of the case and never appeared before this Commission at any stage of the proceedings.
The fact of the case as depicted in the Complaint petition is that the Complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite parties way back in the year 2003 (19.12.2003), for purchasing a garage in the building ‘Shree Guru Apartment’,at Municipal holding No.104/1, Raja Peary Mohan Road, Uttarpara @ Rs.1000/- only per sq. ft. The Complainant claims to have paid the total consideration price of Rs.2,85,000/- by eleven cheques.
The Complainant admits to have received physical possession of the garage. He also claims to have paid Municipal tax in respect of the said garage to the Uttarpara, Kotrung Municipality.
However, allegedly, caring a fig for the repeated requests from the Complainant’s end the opposite parties remained thoroughly indifferent towards the issue related to execution of the deed of registration.
Legal notices served on the opposite parties subsequently did not yield any result.
Considering the OP’s treatment with him as ‘deceitful attitude and unfair trade practice’ the complaint petition has been filed in which the petitioner prays for imposing direction upon the OP to 1) arrange registration of the sale deed in respect of the garage, 2) to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- ‘if the opposite parties fail to make registration’, 3) to pay Rs.20,000/- for causing mental pain and agony, and 4) all costs of proceedings.
The Complainant along with the complaint petition has annexed copies of relevant documents viz. agreement, money receipts, postal track report, newspaper advertisement and legal notice.
The Complainant’s declared residential address is within the district of Hooghly.
The residential address of the OP 1 and declared place of business of OP 2 are also within the district of Hooghly.
The claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.20,00,000/-
Thus, this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.
Materials on records viz. the complaint petition, evidence on affidavit, annexed documents and brief notes of argument filed by the complainant are perused.
Decision with reasons:
The notable aspect of the case is that the agreement was executed on 19.12.2003 and the last installment of the consideration price was paid on 25.11.2005.
But the Complaint petition was filed on 05.07.2018 i.e. almost fifteen years after the execution of the agreement.
Initially the complaint petition was not admitted as it appeared that the submission of the petition was time barred.
However the rejection of the petition was challenged by the Complainant by filing an appeal petition before the Hon’ble State Commission and the Hon’ble State Commission in its order dtd.30.08.22 allowing the appeal, set aside the order of the District Commission and restored the case in its original fie and number.
Hon’ble State Commission observed that the event comes well within the purview of continuous and recurrent cause of action.
Now considering the facts and circumstances of the case the Commission is of the opinion that there is no reason to disbelieve the statements made by the Complainant in his petition and there is no reason to question the authenticity of the documents filed by the Complainant.
In view of the above this District Commission is of the opinion that both the opposite parties adopted unfair means and showed duplicitous attitude towards the Complainant in the matter of fulfilling their commitment.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the complaint case bearing no.CC/88/2018 be and the same is allowed ex parte but in part.
The Commission hereby directs the OP 2 to make appropriate arrangement for registration of the sale deed in respect of the garage sold to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order. However there is no order as to costs.
In case of non-compliance of this order within the stipulated date OP2 will be liable to pay Rs.10,000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties or their authorized Advocates/Agents on record, by hand against proper acknowledgement or sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The final order will be available in the respective website i.e. www.confonet.nic.in
