Sri Shyamal Naskar, S/O Late Rabindra Nath Naskar. filed a consumer case on 20 Nov 2015 against Sri Mintu Goswami, S/O Sri Ranjit Goswami, Developer cum Confirming party. in the South 24 Parganas Consumer Court. The case no is CC/146/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 24 Nov 2015.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS ,
AMANTRAN BAZAR,103/A, KULPI ROAD, KACHARIBAZAR,BARUIPUR,KOLKATA – 144
C.C. CASE NO. _146_ OF ___2015_____
DATE OF FILING : 26.3.2015 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 20.11.2015__
Present : President : Udayan Mukhopadhyay
Member(s) : Mrs. Sharmi Basu
COMPLAINANT : Sri Shyamal Naskar, s/o late Rabindra Nath Naskar of 43N, Prasanta Roy Road, Barisha, P.S. Haridevpur, Kolkata – 8.
-VERSUS -
O.P/O.Ps : Sri Mintu Goswami,s/o Sri Ranjit Goswami, 28, Deshpran Shasmal Road,
P.S. Charu Market, Kolkata – 33.
________________________________________________________________________
J U D G E M E N T
Mrs. Sharmi Basu, Member
The instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the O.P with allegation of deficiency in service.
In a nut-shell, the case of the complainant is that the complainant entered into an agreement for sale with the O.P on 13.2.2014 for purchasing one flat on the First Floor measuring about 750 sq.ft at 125/1/N, Kailash Ghosh Road, Purba Barisha, Kolkata – 8 at a consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- . On good faith complainant paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the O.P and it was decided that balance amount will be paid to the O.P at the time of registration of the said flat . One year has already been elapsed from the date of signing the agreement for sale but the O.P till today did not hand over the said flat . Several requests followed by legal notice to the O.P and written complaint before the Haridevpur P.S. did not yield any fruitful result. Hence, this case praying for direction upon the O.P for handing over the flat with execution and registration of the deed of conveyance in respect of the said flat ,alternatively to return Rs.5 lacs , cost and compensation.
Inspite of service of summon the O.Ps did not appear before this Forum,for which the case proceeded exparte.
After scrutinizing vividly every nook and corner of the instant case and hearing minutely the case of the complainant from his Ld. Advocate, following points are in lime light for consideration:
Points for Decision
Decision with reasons
All the points are taken together for discussion as they are interlinked.
Before going into the merits of the case it is needed to be mentioned here that as the O.P has not cared to appear before this Forum to contradict the allegations raised against him , even after valid service of notice upon him, all the documents and averments of the complainant being unchallenged piece of testimony have been considered as true.
From the record it appears that even after receiving Rs.5 lacs from the complainant towards the total consideration of the flat in question amounting to Rs.15 lacs, O.P has not delivered the possession of the suit flat nor execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant as per agreement for sale dated 13.02.2014 after receiving the balance consideration. On the other hand complainant being ready and willing to pay the balance consideration requested several times to the O.Ps for handing over the possession and also to execute and reregister the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant but all in vein.
Therefore, keeping in mind plethora of landmark decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and also Hon’ble National Commission, we have no hesitation to hold that that the O.P is duty bound to hand over the possession of the suit flat and to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the suit flat in favour of the complainant but O.P has not done the same and thus the O.P has committed gross negligence, inaction and deficiency in rendering services towards the complainant/consumer.
It is also beyond doubt that for the aforesaid inaction, sheer negligence and deficiency in service of the O.P complainant has to suffer tremendous mental agony, harassment and financial loss and for that reason O.P is not only liable to pay back the amount of Rs.5 lacs which was received from the complainant towards the consideration of the suit flat but also to aptly compensate the complainant. In this case, regarding relief towards the complainant it appears that the complainant has placed an alternatife prayer to return back the sum of Rs.5 lacs along with interest @10% to the complainant. We are of the opinion that it is reasonable to allow this prayer and the same is allowed.
Thus all the points are discussed and all are in favour of the complainant.
Therefore, the case of the complainant succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered
That the case of the complainant is allowed exparte without cost against the O.P.
The O.P is directed to pay back the amount of Rs.5 lacs along with interest @10% p.a from the date of filling of this case till realization and also to pay Rs.1 lac towards compensation to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which, O.P shall pay Rs.100/- per day after the stipulated period till its full and final realization.
Member President
Dictated and corrected by me
Member
The judgement in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,
Ordered
That the case of the complainant is allowed exparte without cost against the O.P.
The O.P is directed to pay back the amount of Rs.5 lacs along with interest @10% p.a from the date of filling of this case till realization and also to pay Rs.1 lac towards compensation to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which, O.P shall pay Rs.100/- per day after the stipulated period till its full and final realization.
Member President
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.