DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,

 KOLKATA-700 0144

      C.C. CASE NO. __37_ _ OF ___2017

DATE OF FILING : 2.3.2015      DATE OF PASSINGJUDGEMENT:12.3.2019

Present                 :   President       :   Ananta Kumar Kapri

                                 Member(s)    :    Jhunu Prasad

COMPLAINANT   :    Sri Bulbul Mondal, son of late Badal Chandra Mondal of Village Jagannath Nagar, Via Batanagar, P.S Maheshtala, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Kolkata- 139.

•  VERSUS  -

O.P/O.Ps                    :  Sri Samir Chatterjee, son of late Sudhir Chatterjee, Prop. Of M/s Krishna Enterprise of Village- Daulatpur, Via Batanagar, P.S Maheshtala, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Kolkata-139.

__________________________________________________________________

                                                J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President

               The facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follows.

               The complainant decided to purchase two flats and one garage from the O.P/developer and for that end, two sale agreements dated 26.5.2009 – one for garage and another for two flats on second floor measuring 1500 sq.ft super built up area were executed between the complainant and the O.P. Consideration price for the flats was fixed at Rs.13,12,500/- and for the garage  Rs 1 lac. Complainant paid Rs.4,30,000/-  only before execution of the aforesaid sale agreement and the balance consideration price was agreed to be paid at the time of delivery of possession. But, possession was never delivered to the complainant and, therefore, the complainant has come up before this Forum by filing the instant case ,praying for passing a direction upon the O.P to deliver possession, effect registration of a deed of conveyance, delivery of completion certificate and payment of compensation etc. Hence, this case.

              The O.P has been contesting the case by filing written statement, wherein it is admitted by the O.P that he executed a sale agreement dated 26.5.2009 and that he also accepted the consideration price of Rs.4,30,000/- from the complainant. According to him, the agreement has lost its force after expiry of the month of December, 2011. The construction of the building was completed by him before December, 2011 in terms of the agreement and after having the construction completed, he requested the complainant to make the payment of the balance amount of consideration money. But the complainant did not pay the said money and, therefore, he has sold away the said flats to other purchasers. He is willing to return the sum of Rs.4,30,000/- as received by him from the complainant with interest as ordered by the Forum. He has no deficiency in service and, therefore, the case should be dismissed in limini with cost.

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

POINT FOR DETERMINATION

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

DECISION WITH REASONS

Point no.1 , 2 & 3  :

               Already heard the submissions of the Ld. Lawyers appearing for both the parties. Perused the materials on record and also the evidence of the parties ,kept in the record. Considered all these.

               It is argued on behalf of the O.P that the case is not at all maintainable in law as this Forum has once held to the effect that the case is barred by limitation. According to him, if it is once held by the Forum that the case is barred by limitation, the case cannot be entertained by the Forum as being maintainable in law. So, to him, the case should be dismissed .

              On perusal of order no. 10 dated 14.9.2017 passed by this Forum, it is found that a hearing was held by this Forum on the point of limitation. After having heard both the parties and going through the materials on record this Forum came to a finding that the instant case is barred by limitation. That order has not been assailed before the higher authority and the said order has still remained in force. When, the said order remains in force, we cannot proceed further with this case and, therefore, the case requires to be dismissed.

          The point nos. 2 and 3 need not be discussed any more.

              In the result, the case fails  .

              Hence,

ORDERED

             That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest as being barred by limitation.

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

                                                                                                                                  President

I / We agree

                                                            Member

            Dictated and corrected by me

                                                  President