West Bengal

Siliguri

CC/2014/139

SRI BIKASH SARKAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

SRI MALAY DAS - Opp.Party(s)

08 Jun 2015

ORDER

Consumer Case No.139/S/2014

 

 

Order No.12

Dt.08.06.15.        The complainants’ case in brief is that they jointly purchased the land as mentioned in the schedule to the petition of complaint through Title Deed no.2795 for the year 2014 registered in the Office of the ADSR, Siliguri- II at Bagdogra.  Before the purchase, the complainants had approached the OP for preparing the site map and the OP agreed to do so, since he had license as ‘Amin’.  The OP measured the land and confirmed the boundaries, and identified it after verification with the mouza map.  The complainants paid the OP Rs.6,500/- as his fees.  The complainants purchased the land based on the assurance of the OP, and they paid the consideration money to the vendors and the registration fees and stamp duty to the Government of West Bengal.  The complainants claim that after the purchase, they found that the OP has made wrong measurement, and the plot nos. mentioned in the site map are incorrect, and the land was not properly identified, and as such the purchase of the land has been adversely affected, and the OP has refused to compensate them.         

The complainants accordingly filed this case praying that the OP be directed to refund the said sum of Rs.6,500/-, and a further sum of Rs.4,90,000/- together with interest which the complainants spent for purchasing the land, and they pray for some other reliefs as well.

The OP did not appear and did not contest the case. 

To prove the case the petitioner/complainant has filed evidence-in-chief, and has also filed some document.

1. Agreement to sell dated 16.03.2014.
2. Plot informations & Khatian No.2639 & 2640.
3. Deed No.1046/2010.
4. Site Map prepared by the OP.
5. Title Deed No.2795 for the year 2014.
6. Photo copy of IGR No.237510 dated 07.04.2014 showing payment of registration fees. 

 

It appears from the page 3 of Annexure-I that there is no signature of the intended purchaser. 

The L R Porcha shows the existence of that Plot No.445.

The complainant did not file original sale deed. 

He has filed Xerox copy of sale deed.

The complainant has also filed examination-in-chief on oath.

 

Contd…….P/2

-:2:-

 

 

He has stated his case within para 1 to 10.  But in para 13 of evidence-in-chief he stated “that we after filing the case approached/informed the sellers from whom we purchased the below scheduled land to look into the matter and the sellers admitted that the below Scheduled land is situated in the river Bhoismari and the piece of land identified by the OP as plot No.445 is incorrect and agreed to take back the property on payment of total consideration price to us which we have paid to them”.

In the schedule the L. R. Plot 445 having boundaries as laid down therein. 

On these premises and in absence of any evidence of the commplainant, the statement in para 13 of evidence-in-chief is not sufficient to prove the allegations of complainant against OP.

The evidence on record fails to prove the negligence on the part of the OP. 

Secondly, it is alleged that complainant paid money to the Amin, but there is no evidence that money has been paid to Amin.  There is no evidence that Amin put his signature on the map. 

Moreover, whether the complainant is a consumer with respect to the OP/Amin is a debatable point. 

On the premise above, we are of the opinion that complainant fails to prove his case against the OP and as such the case fails.

Hence, it is

                   O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.139/S/2014 is dismissed exparte.

Let copies of this order be given to the complainant free of cost.

 

 

                  -Member-                                                     -President-