DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,

 KOLKATA-700 0144

      C.C. CASE NO. __335_ _ OF ___2014

DATE OF FILING :_30.7.2014         DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:14.1.2019

Present                 :   President       :   Ananta Kumar Kapri

                                 Member(s)    :    Subrata Sarker  & Jhunu Prasad

COMPLAINANT   :             Sri Saikat Ganguly, s/o Late Timir Ganguly.

•  VERSUS  -

O.P/O.Ps                    : 1. Sri Rajib Goswami, son of Biplab Goswami, C/O Goswami Enterprise , Church Lane, P.O & P.S Baruipur, Kolkata-144, South 24-Parganas.

                                  2. Sri Aloke Kumar Das, son of late Krishna Chandra Das 

                                  3.   Sri Ashoke Kumar Das, son of late Krishna Chandra Das, of Krishna Apartment, 1^st Floor, Flat no.1, Uttar Ukil Para, P.O & P.S Baruipur, Kolkata- 144.

                                  4.     Sri Sankha Jyoti Maitra, son of latge Bibek Jyoti Maitra, of Amrita Vihar apartment, Block-B, Flat 3/3, Garia Main Road, Kamalgazi, P.O Narendrapur, P.S Sonarpur, Kol- 103.

                                  5.     Sri Sandeep Chatterjee, son of late Satyendra Nath Chatterjee

                                  6.   Smt. Jui Chatterjee, alias Ruchira Chatterjee,wife of Sri Sandeep Cahtterjee,

                                  Both of Krishna Apartment, 2^nd  Floor, Flat no.2, Uttar Ukil Para, P.O & P.S Baruipur, Kolkata- 144.

                                  7.  Sri Baidya nath Mitra, son olf late Kali Charan Mitra.

                                  8. Ms. Indrani Mitra, wife of Shri Baidya Nath Mitra

                                  Both of Krishna Apartment, 2^nd  Floor, Flat no.3, Uttar Ukil Para, P.O & P.S Baruipur, Kolkata- 144.

                                  9.     Station In Charge, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Baruipur, P.O & P.S Baruipur, Kulpi Road, Besides State Bank of India, Baruipur Branch, Kol-144.

                                  10.   Partha Pratim Das, son of late prasanta Das of K.G Das Road, P.O & P.S Baruipur, near Krishna Cinema Hall, Kol-144.

__________________________________________________________________

                                                J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

Sri Ananta Kumar  Kapri, President

                Facts leading to the filing of the instant case under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 may be epitomized as follows.

               The complainant purchased a flat as described in schedule to the petition of complaint from the O.P-1 for a consideration price of Rs.3,20,000/-. A Sale Agreement was also effected between them. Possession of the flat was also delivered to the complainant by the O.P-1. But, O.P-1 has not installed the Transformer in terms of the agreement and, therefore, the complainant has filed the instant case ,praying for passing an order, directing the O.Ps to register the flat in favour of the complainant and also to install the transformer in the flat. Hence, the case.

                O.P-1 has been contesting the case by filing written statement ,wherein it is contended inter alia that the case is not maintainable in Law. According to him, O.P purchased the flat by sale deed dated 27.1.2010 and, therefore, he sold the said flat to the complainant. There was no whisper of installation of any transformer as alleged by the complainant. The allegation of the complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious and, therefore, it should be dismissed in limini.

              O.P nos. 5 to 9 have also filed written statement and in the written statement they have supported the case of the complainant.

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

POINT FOR DETERMINATION

1. Is the case maintainable in law?
2. Are the O.Ps guilty of  deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant ?
3. Is the complainant  entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?

EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES

          Evidence on affidavit is filed on behalf of the complainant. The contesting O.Ps have also filed evidence on affidavit and the same is kept in the record after consideration. 

DECISION WITH REASONS

Point no.1 , 2 & 3  :

               The case is brought by the complainant ,alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P-1,developer. According to the complainant, the O.P-1 has not registered the flat in his favour and has not also installed Transformer in terms of the agreement. A copy of sale agreement is filed herein by the complainant and the same is kept in the record.

              On perusal of the so-called agreement for sale, it is found that it is not at all an agreement for sale. The nomenclature of a deed does never determine the nature and character of a deed. It is the contents of the deed which throw a considerable light as to the nature and character of the deed. On perusal of the sale agreement it is found that it is nothing but the acknowledgement of the money received by the O.P-1 developer. There is no mention of any service which the developer has agreed to render in favour of the complainant. There is no mention whatsoever to the effect that a Transformer is to be installed in the flat of the developer. In absence of such agreement regarding rendering of any services, the case appears to be not maintainable before this Forum and, therefore, the case deserves to be dismissed.

              In the result, the case fails .

               Hence,

ORDERED

             That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps, but without any cost.

         Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.   

                                                                                                                   President

I / We agree

                             Member                        Member

Dictated and corrected by me

                           President