IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC-27/2014 .
Date of Filing: 25.02.2014 . Date of Final Order: 24.03 .2015.
Complainant: Biswanath Roy, S/O Late Dulal Chandra Roy, 12 No, Jagodish Bhattacharyya Lane,
P.O. Khagra, P.S. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. Sri Kanailal Das Majumdar, S/O Late Anil Chandra Das Majumdar, Managing Director & represented of Prantik Construction Pvt. Ltd,
Residing at – P-226, C.I.T. Scheme VIOO_M, Block “C”, Flat No.1, P.S. Maniltola,
Kolkata- 700054.
2. Smt. Jayasri Das Majumdar, W/O Sri Kanailal Das Majumdar, Director of Prantik Construction Pvt. Ltd, Residing at –P-226, C.I.T. Scheme VII-M, Block “C”, Flat No.1, P.S. Maniktola,
Kolkata- 700054.
Present: Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya ………………….President.
Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra ……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya – Presiding Member.
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 for a direction upon the OP Nos. 1 & 2 to execute and register a Deed of Kabla maintain the terms and conditions of the Deed of Agreement dt. 25.06.2012 in favour of the complainant and interest @ 14% p.a, cost and damages for mental agony and compensation.
The complainant’s case in brief, is that the Ops expressed their intention to start promotory business and for that intend to purchase the 1st schedule land through complainant. After discussion the Ops purchased 6524.75 Sq.ft of land through the complainant- negotiator and at that time the Ops gave an offer to the complainant that after completion of construction , the Ops will give 1200 Sq.ft flat plus car parking at a consideration of Rs.12 lac and Rs.1,50,000/- for car parking area, at a total consideration of 13.5 lack and out of which 13 lacks were received by OP against five money receipts on respective five occasions on 4.7.09 for Rs. 9 lacks and Rs.1 lack each on four occasions on 15.07.09, 06.06.11, 25.11.11 and 10.01.12. Total amount of Rs.13 lacks were paid to the OP No.1 and for that purpose there was an agreement for sale on 25.06.2012.
Decision with reasons.
This is a case praying for direction upon the OP Nos. 1 & 2 to execute and register a Deed of Kabla maintain the terms and conditions of the Deed of Agreement dt. 25.06.2012 in favour of the complainant and interest @ 14% p.a, cost and damages for mental agony and compensation and costs.
The complainant’s case in brief, is that the Ops expressed their intention to start promotory business and for that intend to purchase the 1st schedule land through complainant. After discussion the Ops purchased 6524.75 Sq.ft of land through the complainant- negotiator and at that time the Ops gave an offer to the complainant that after completion of construction , the Ops will give 1200 Sq.ft flat plus car parking at a consideration of Rs.12 lac and Rs.1,50,000/- for car parking area, at a total consideration of 13.5 lack and out of which 13 lacks were received by OP against five money receipts on respective five occasions on 4.7.09 for Rs. 9 lacks and Rs.1 lack each on four occasions on 15.07.09, 06.06.11, 25.11.11 and 10.01.12. Total amount of Rs.13 lacks were paid to the OP No.1 and for that purpose there was an agreement for sale on 25.06.2012.
To prove the complainant’s case he has filed the relevant five money receipts regarding payment of consideration money of Rs.13,00,000/- on five occasions out of total consideration of Rs.13,50,000/- including car parking area for a consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-.
The complainant has filed an unregistered agreement for sale dt. 25.6.12.
The complainant has also filed Xerox copies of legal notice along with receipts showing dispatch of the notice upon the OP.
On the other hand, the OP has not turned up before this Forum in spite of service of notice and for that the complainant has been taken up for ex parte hearing. Accordingly, there is no evidence from the side of the OP.
Thus, the evidence adduced by the complainant is unchallenged testimony.
The main prayer of the complainant is for execution and registration of sale deed in favour of the complainant by the OP in respect of the flat in question as per agreement for sale dt. 25.06.12.
From the unchallenged five money receipts amounting to Rs.13,00,000/- and from the unchallenged Agreement for Sale it is clear that complainant has paid consideration money of Rs.13,00,000/- out of total consideration money of Rs.13,50,000/- including car parking area for Rs.1,50,000/-.
In the evidence-in-chief the complainant has also deposed that he is ready to pay the balance amount of consideration for Rs.50,000/- at the time of registration of the Sale Deed in respect of the schedule flat.
In this case the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant has referred a reported decision in an identical case as to direction upon the OP to register the sale deeds in (2012) I WBLR (CPSC) 653-Mrs Sumona Bagchi (Bhattacharyaa) & anoth. v M/S Ratnakar Properties Pvt. Ltd & Ors wherein entire money has been paid by the complainants and there is negligence on the part of the OP to register the sale deed violating the terms and conditions of the agreement which proves deficiency in service and direction was given upon the OP to execute and register the sale deeds in favour of the complainant in respect of schedule flat.
The Ld. Lawyer for the complainant has also referred to another reported decision in AIR 2009 Delhi-122 wherein it has been held that proceeding under Consumer Protection Act and in a civil Court can simultaneously go on, even if issues involved in two proceedings are substantially similar, remedies are independent of each other and the existence of parallel of other adjudicatory Forums cannot take away or exclude jurisdiction created under Consumer Protection Act, provision of the Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other provision of any other law for the time being in force.
Considering the above reported decision in AIR 2009 Delhi-122, we can safely conclude that this case is maintainable in this Forum.
On the basis of unchallenged testimony of the complainant in support of his case and also considering the above reported decision, we have no other alternative but to conclude that the complainant is entitled to get relief as to execution and registration of the schedule flat by the OP in favour of the complaint after payment of balance consideration money of Rs.50, 000/-.
Considering the above discussions, we find that the complainant is entitled to get award ex parte as to execution and registration of the flat in question within one month on payment of balance consideration money.
Hence,
Ordered
that the Consumer Complaint No. 27/2014 be and the same is allowed ex parte in part against the Ops. The Ops are directed to execute and register the flat in question as per Agreement of sale in favour of the complainant within one month from the date of receiving of balance amount of Rs.50,000/- . In default, the Ops are to pay Rs.100/- per day’s delay as fine and the amount so accumulated shall be deposited in the State Consumer Welfare Fund.
There will be no order as to cost.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under registered post with A/D to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
Member Member President
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum. Redressal Forum. Redressal Forum.
Murshidabad. Murshidabad. Murshidabad.
