Date of Filing : 13/12/2022
Date of Judgement: 20/11/2024
Sri Manish Deb, Hon’ble Member
The fact of the instant mater is that one Snehasudha Dasgupta wife of Bimal Bhusan Dasgupta was the owner of plot of land measuring more or less 4 cottahs 13 chittacks comprised in Dag No.408 appertaining to Khatian No.82 , at Mouza- Jadavpur, J.L. No.35, Touzi No.151, 174 Garfa Main Road P.S Survey Park.
That said Snehasudha Dasgupta was in possession over the same till her lifetime with her family members.
That said Snehasudha Dasgupta wife of Bimal Bhusan died on 12.03.1981 leaving behind her sons and daughters namely (i) Jyoti Bhusan Dasgupta (ii) Durjay Dasgupta (iii) Tarun Kumar Dasgupta (iv) Debasis Dasgupta (v) Subhas Dasgupta (vi) Krishna Dasgupta (vii)Sipra Dasgupta i.e OP No. 1 to 7 AND (viii) Subhra Sengupta as her only legal heirs.
That said Subhra sengupta wife of late Jyotish Ranjan Sengupta daughter of late Snehasudha Dasgupta died intestate on 07.06.1996 leaving behind her only son namely Sujyoti Sengupta as her only legal heir and successor i.e OP No. 8.
That the OP No.9 is a partnership firm having its office at 43/31 Jheel Road, P.O. Santoshpur P.S.Jadavpur at present Survey Park , Kolkata 700 075 District South 24 Parganas represented by its partners (i) Ahjanta Guha (ii) Saugata Mukherjee, OP No. 10 & 11.
That OP No.1 to OP No.8 jointly entered into the development agreement on 18.09.1996 with the OP No.9, as per the terms of the said development agreement dated 18.09.1996, OP No.9, 10 &11 prepared on Building Plan and submitted it before the K.M.C. for sanction and approval. Thereafter OP No.9, 10 & 11 being the developer constructed a multi storied building on the said plot of land with an intention to sell the individual flat to the intending purchasers.
That the complainant herein was interested to purchase two garages from the developer’s allocation and the complainant herein agreed to purchase two garage spaces measuring about 250 sq.ft. super built up area on the ground floor of the building along with proportionate share of land and common facilities of the building for a total consideration of Rs.1,29,000/- That on 14.02.1998 the complainant herein entered into an agreement for sale with the opposite parties .Therefore as per terms and conditions of the said agreement for sale dated 14.02.1998 that complainant paid the entire consideration money to the developer.
That after receiving the entire consideration money from the complainant herein the OP No.9, 10 &11 being the developer handover the possession of the said two garage space to the complainant but not registered the same in favour of the complainant.
Thereafter the complainant time to time given reminder either personally or by telephone or visited the office of the Opposite Parties but the ops reluctant to take any positive steps to execute and register the same in favour of the complainant. Finding no other alternative, the Ld Advocate of the complainant issued notice on 01.08.2022 to the addresses of the opposite parties and requested the opposite parties to execute and register the proposed deed of conveyance.
After receiving the said notice the OP No.9, 10 &11 did nothing. The complainant states that she is/was all along ready and willing to get registered the proposed deed of conveyance of two garage space with proportioned undivided share of land.
Finding no other alternative complainant has filed this application before this Commission and Complainant prays for -a direction to the opposite parties to execute and register the deed of conveyance regarding the property/two garage space described in the second schedule complaint petition & Schedule “ B” of the sale agreement and further or other reliefs as the complainant may be entitled to get as per law.
POINTS FOR DECISION are
1.Whether the complainant fall in the category of the “Consumer” under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
2.Whether the complainant is within limitation under C.P.Act,2019.
3.Whether the commission has the jurisdiction to decide the present complainant.
4.Is the case is maintainable or not.
5.Is the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
OBSERVATION
The complainant fall in the category of the “consumer” under C.P. Act, 2019.
The complaint is filled within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
The main question for consideration before us is whether the opposite parties is deficient by not completing the registration process of two garage space as stated in the compliant petition.
Our view is that the opposite parties are liable in deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as alleged as the complainant.
And we considered that entitlement of getting relief sought by the complainant is also affirmative.
The complainant has submitted his evidence, brief note of argument in the case.
The complainant has adduced evidence together with copy of documents which includes money receipt.
The complainant filed one agreement dated 07.02.1998 with the opposite parties also filed the money receipts, possession letter issued by the OPs and also filed a copy of the notice dated 01.08.2022 of the Ld. Advocate for the complainant.
That inspite of repeated requests the OPs failed and neglected to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant.
The complainant has come before the this Commission for redressal. The complainant as purchaser has performed his obligation by paying the consideration money but OPs failed neglected to render their services by executing and registering the deed of conveyance in respect of the two garage as mentioned in the complaint petition . The property situated at Mouza- Jadavpur, J.L. No.35, Touzi No.151, Premises No. 174, Garfa Main Road, P.S Survey Park , Kolkata – 700075 within the territorial jurisdiction of the this Commission.
None of the opposite parties appeared in the instant case for filing their written version in spite of good service of notices. The complainant has adduced evidence but the said evidence was unchallenged.
No one has challenged the complaint petition as well as affidavit in evidence of the complainant, therefore the statements made by the complainant as well as the documents tendered by the complainant are unchallenged and unchallenged evidence is deemed to be admitted.
The OPs have not contested the case , as such the ops have not filed any written version in the case, even the OPs have not submitted any reliable documents defend the complaint filed by the complainant.
We have applied our mind and meticulously gone through the materials on record. We find reasonable ground and proof there in support of complainant contention.
By all means we are of the opinion that ops are liable in deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant even non appearing in the case and non filing of evidence by the OPs is a clear cut proof of deficiency in service on the part of the Ops , and there was an established fact of breach of contract as per the agreement so called.
Thus, the case of the complainant stands successfully established and thereby the complainant is found eligible to get the relief.
In our opinion, the complainant has succeeded in establishing his case and thereby entitled to get relief.
Hence it is
ORDERED
CC No.683/2022 is allowed ex parte against OPs with cost.
- OPs are directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance of the Two garage space as mentioned in the scheduled of the complaint petition as well as schedule of sale agreement within 60 days from the date of this order.
- OPs are directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order.
- OPs are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant within 60 days.
In the event of non compliance by the OPs, the complainant shall be at liberty to initiate necessary action as per law after expiry of the aforesaid period.
Dictated and corrected by
Member
