DATE OF FILING                    :     24-09-2013.

DATE OF S/R                            :      24-10-2013.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     23-05-2014.  

1.      Smt. Gouri Rani Bhattacharya,

wife of late Lalit Mohan Bhattacharya,

2.      Smt. Sikha Bhattacharya,

wife of late Kashinath Bhattacharya,

both residing at 306/1, G.T. Road, Belur,

P.S. Bally, District – Howrah,

PIN – 711202.

3.      Smt. Sharmila Belel,

wife of Dr. Manoj Belel,

residing at 2, Satya Charan Mukherjee  Road,

P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah,

PIN – 2.

4.      Smt Samita Biswas,

wife of Sri Shantanu Biswas, 

residing at 15/1, Krishna Chatterjee Lane, P.S. Bally,

Howrah – 711 202.--------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANTS.

-          Versus   -

Sri  Goutam Kumar Barman,

son of Sri Jagdish Prasad Barman,

proprietor of M/S. J.J. Construction,

having office at 254/3/1, Panchanantala  Road,

P.O. & P.S.  Howrah,

PIN  – 711101.-----------------------------------------------------------------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.               This is a case wherein the complainants being the co-owners of the suit property have prayed for direction upon the o.p. to deliver the schedule mentioned flat in complete condition as per specifications of the agreement dated 10-05-2006 and to pay compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs for mental agony and Rs. 50,000/- as litigation costs as the o.p. in violation of the agreement dated 10-05-2006 did not deliver the 1000 sq. ft. flat as mentioned in the schedule together with Rs. 62,500/- as agreed upon in spite of repeated requests.

2.               The o.p. in the written version contended interalia that the complaint  is not maintainable for lack of jurisdiction and for lack of any cause of action; that the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation. 

3.        Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Whether the complaint is maintainable in its present form  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainants are  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

4.         POINT NO. 1

      Admittedly the complainants are the co-sharers and co-owners of the property and they entered into an agreement with the o.p. for developing the land vide agreement dated 10-05-2006 wherein the o.p. agreed to deliver a 1000 sq. ft. flat  together with Rs. 62,500/- to the complainants. On scrutiny of the records it appears that the complainants in para 10 of the complaint has valued the case at Rs. 19,50,000/-. On further scrutiny  it appears that they have prayed for compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs and litigation costs of Rs. 50,000/- that means aggregating ( 19,50,000 + 4,00,000 + 50,000) Rs. 24,00,000/-. This is, therefore, palpable that this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as this Forum can try the complaint where the valuation is confined with Rs. 20 lakhs including the valuation of service and goods. Therefore, we are of the view that the complaint is hit by lack of jurisdiction of this Forum.

5.   It is further palpable from the petition of complaint that the complainants have miserably failed to identify the actual  cause of action or the specific date when the  cause of action arose. Mentioning of several dates in para 9 of the petition of complaint cannot ipso facto place the complainants in safer side.  The deed of agreement  was executed on 10-05-2006. By swearing an affidavit dated 20-05-2014 the complainants had admitted that they are not in possession of the suit.  Therefore, it is not the case of the complainants that they are in continuous possession of the suit flat since after 2006. Naturally, the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation, as the complainants did not file the complaint within two years of the deed of agreement as per law. This is because the case was filed on 24-09-2013 though the agreement  was executed on 10-05-2006. Accordingly, we are of the view that the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum in its present form.    

6.         POINT NO. 2

      When in our considered opinion the complaint itself is not maintainable before this Forum, it would not be wise to go into the merit of the complaint though the complainants are consumers in view of the latest position of law.  The point is accordingly disposed of.

      Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 336 of 2013 ( HDF 336 of 2013 )  be  and the same is dismissed on contest as against the o.p. not being maintainable before this  Forum.

      The complainants are at liberty to file the complaint before the appropriate Forum.

      No order as to costs.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.