DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS,

AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144

                                                     C.C. CASE NO. 414 OF 2014

                                               DATE OF FILING: 08/09/2014 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  04/06/2014

Present                        :   President       :   Ananta Kumar Kapri

                                        Member(s)    :   Subrata Sarker  & Jhunu Prasad                               

COMPLAINANT             : Sri Shib Sankar Ghosh, S/o Late Kali Kinkar Ghosh, 35/3, Jogendra Basak Lane, Kolkata- 700 036

• VERSUS  -

O.P/O.Ps                            :  1 a) Sri Jayanta Kumar Biswas, Proprietor of Rainbow Estate Developers, 20/3, New Santoshpur Main Road, P.S- Kasba, Kol-700 075

                                                b) Gouranga Kar, S/o- Late Haripada Kar, 454, P. Majumdar Road, P.S- Garfa, Kol- 700 078

                                                c) Sri Tarak Das, 454, P. Majumdar Road, P.S- Garfa, Kolkata- 700 078

                                                2) Arnab Das, S/o- Pasupati Das and Grandson of Late Ram Chandra Sharma, 454, P. Majumdar Road, P.S- Garfa, Kol- 700 078

1. Smt. Sunita Chanda
2. Sri Sanjay Biswas
3. Sri Dibyendu Dutta
4. Sri Biplab Majumdar,

All are residing at 21/1B, Purbchal Canal South Road, P.S- Garfa, Kolkata- 78

_____________________________________________________________________________________

J U D G M E N T

Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President

The nub of the facts leading to the filing of the complaint case is that O.P- 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) are developers and O.P- 2(a) and 2(d) are land owners. The complainant entered into an agreement for sale on 03.06.03 with the developers for purchasing a flat succinctly described in the second schedule to the complaint, for a total consideration price of Rs. 18,00,000/-. But, the developers did not handover the possession of the flat and car parking space to the complainant, not deed day registered the said flat for favor of the complainant, despite numerable request to them by the complainant. Now the complainant has filed a instant case praying for registration of deed of conveyance, delivery of the possession of the flat and car parking space alongwith the completion certificate and also for compensation etc.

Hence, this case.

The developers have not turned up to contest the case and, therefore, the case is heard expartee against them. It is only O.P-2(a) to 2(d) who have been contesting the case by filing written statement wherein it is contended inter alia that the complainant has prayed for nothing but, specific performance of agreement dated 03.06.03 which was executed between the complainant and the developers. According to them, one Ramchandra Sharma was the owner of the land and he did not sign the said agreement, although his name transpired in the said agreement. Ramchandra Sharma gifted away the case property to his grandson i.e. Arnab Das and the said Arnab Das transferred the said property to O.P-2(a) to 2(d) by virtue of registered sale deed dated 12.08.09. The contesting O.Ps are not the parties to the agreements dated 03.06.03, nor are they service providers of the complainant. That apart, it is further averred in W/S that the total value of the subject flat is Rs. 32, 00,000/- and, therefore, this Forum does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the case. The case should, therefore, be dismissed in limine with cost.

Upon the averments of the parties the following points are formulated for consideration.

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

1. Is the case maintainable before this Forum?
2. Are the O.Ps guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
3. Is the complainant is entitled to relief / reliefs as prayed for?

EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES

Complaint is treated as evidence of the complainant, vide the petition dated 22.05.17. Evidence on affidavit is filed by the O.P and the same is kept in record.

DECISION WITH REASONS

Point nos. 1, 2 & 3

It is contented on behalf of the contesting O.Ps that the value of the case exceeds the pecuniary limits of jurisdiction of the forum and, therefore, this forum does not have any jurisdiction to entertain the case. He submits that the value of subject flat is Rs. 32, 00,000/- and this is evident at page 11 of agreement of sale dated 03.06.03.

A perusal of the agreement for sale dated 03.06.03, vide at page 11 thereof reveals that the total price payable by the purchasers to the developers for the entire flat on the third floor and also the car parking space on the ground floor alongwith proportionate share in the land and the share of the common passage is Rs. 32, 00,000/- only which shall be paid by the purchaser to the developer in advance at a time or in two installments on the day of signing of the sale agreement. So, it is found that the actual value of the subject flat is Rs. 32, 00,000/-. That apart the complainant also prays for compensation to the tune of Rs. 2, 50,000/- and this being so the value of the cost stands at Rs. 34, 50,000/-. The complainant has suppressed the actual value of the subject flat; he has valued it at Rs. 20, 00,000/-. But, the actual price of the subject flat is Rs. 32, 00,000/- and this being so this Forum does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this case.

Point no. 1 is thus answered against the complainant accordingly.

The other two points i.e. point nos. 2 and 3 require no further discussion in view of conclusion drawn under point no. 1.

Hence,

ORDERED

That the complaint case be and the same is not maintainable before this Forum in view of the discussion made in the body of judgment.

Let the complaint be returned to the complainant for presentation to the proper Forum after making endorsement in accordance with law.

I/ We agree                                                                              President

Member                         Member

Dictated and corrected by me

                                      President