West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/16/2016

Smt. Maya Majhi, W/O Jahar Majhi. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Tapan Sardar, S/O Lalit Mohan Sardar. - Opp.Party(s)

Debdas Baidya.

31 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , JUDGES’ COURT, ALIPORE KOLKATA-700 027

 

C.C. CASE NO. ___16  OF ___2016____

 

DATE OF FILING : 22.2.2016     DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:_31.8.16_

 

Present                        :   President       :   Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :  Smt.  Sharmi Basu                                

 

COMPLAINANT                  :  Smt. Maya Majhi,w/o Jahar Majhi of 76, Rakhaldas Auddy Road, P.S. Alipore, Kolkata – 27.

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                                :       Sri Tapan Sardar,s/o Lalit Mohan Sardar, Vill. Magurkhali,               

                                                    P.O Nepalgang, P.S. Bishnupur, Pin-743503.

________________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

 

            Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member

            The petition of complaint made under section 12 of the C.P Act ,1986 has been filed by Smt. Maya Majhi  against the O.Ps on the ground of deficiency in service on the part of  the O.P .

             In short the case of the complainant that he entered into an agreement on 30.8.2013 for purchasing 6 cottah 6 chittak of land in Mouza Raghavpur, J.L. no.118, L.R. Khatian nos. 581,200 ,L.R. Dag no. 22 and 23 , Pargana-Magura, P.S. Bishnupur, Village-Magurkhali, Dist. South 24-Parganas  at a price of Rs.3,30,000/-. Complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- on 30.8.2013 as an advance and paid Rs.3000/- on 25.12.2014. Thus the balance amount due is Rs.1,52,000/- . It was decided that within six months from the date of 30.8.2013 the deed of conveyance will be registered in respect of the plot . But O.P failed to do the same. Complainant requested the O.P time without number to register the sale deed in respect of schedule below proper on receipt of balance consideration money but it yielded no result. Hence, this case praying for directions upon the O.P to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the schedule property on receiving the balance consideration money, compensation of Rs.50,000/-  for causing harassment and torture, mental agony, litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

The case is proceeding in exparte against the O.P in view of order no.6 dated 3.8.2016.

            Points for decision in this case is;

1. Whether this case is adjudicable  by this Forum or not.
2. Whether the complainant is a Consumer or not.
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps or not.
4. Whether the complainant is eligible to get relief as prayed for partly or fully.

Decision with reasons

            All the points are taken together as they are interlinked.

            Even after valid service of notice the O.P did not appear for which case is running in exparte against the O.P.

            After scrutinizing vividly the complaint case filed on affidavit and all other documents brought before this Forum by the complain ant through his ld. Advocate and hearing the argument at full length from the complainant in person, it appears that the complainant has entered into an agreement for sale for purchasing a plot but in four corners of the case there is no whisper about the transfer of plot in question after development. Of the land in question by the developer

            In this regard we are highlighting the definition of service under the purviews of Section 2(1)(o ) of the C.P Act, 1986 amended up to date. As per section 2(1)( o ) of the C.P Act, 1986 promoting or development of flat or plot is under the purview of the C.P Act which is once again established by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the landmark decision in the case against Lucknow Development Authority

            In the instant case , it is a pure case of transfer of property i.e. sale in simpliciter which is not at all within the purview of the C.P Act, 1986. Automatically this Forum being the Consumer Forum has no power to adjudicate such case where only transfer of property i.e. sale in simpliciter is concerned.

            Therefore, in light of the above discussion, the case of the complainant is liable to be dismissed without cost for want of jurisdiction and the first point for discussion is against the complainant and as such there is no need to discuss about the other points.

            Thus the complaint case fails.

            Hence,

                                                            Ordered

That the case be and the same is dismissed in exparte without cost for want of jurisdiction with liberty to file the case afresh on selfsame cause of action at the appropriate court of Law.

Let a plain copy of judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rule.

 

 

Member                                   Member                                                           President

 

 

Dictated and corrected by me

 

 

 

                        Member

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The judgment in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

 

Ordered

That the case be and the same is dismissed in exparte without cost for want of jurisdiction with liberty to file the case afresh on selfsame cause of action at the appropriate court of Law.

Let a plain copy of judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rule.

 

 

Member                                   Member                                                           President

 

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , JUDGES’ COURT, ALIPORE KOLKATA-700 027

 

C.C. CASE NO. ___16  OF ___2016____

 

DATE OF FILING : 22.2.2016     DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:_31.8.16_

 

Present                        :   President       :   Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :  Smt.  Sharmi Basu                                

 

COMPLAINANT                  :  Smt. Maya Majhi,w/o Jahar Majhi of 76, Rakhaldas Auddy Road, P.S. Alipore, Kolkata – 27.

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                                :       Sri Tapan Sardar,s/o Lalit Mohan Sardar, Vill. Magurkhali,               

                                                    P.O Nepalgang, P.S. Bishnupur, Pin-743503.

________________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

 

            Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member

            The petition of complaint made under section 12 of the C.P Act ,1986 has been filed by Smt. Maya Majhi  against the O.Ps on the ground of deficiency in service on the part of  the O.P .

             In short the case of the complainant that he entered into an agreement on 30.8.2013 for purchasing 6 cottah 6 chittak of land in Mouza Raghavpur, J.L. no.118, L.R. Khatian nos. 581,200 ,L.R. Dag no. 22 and 23 , Pargana-Magura, P.S. Bishnupur, Village-Magurkhali, Dist. South 24-Parganas  at a price of Rs.3,30,000/-. Complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- on 30.8.2013 as an advance and paid Rs.3000/- on 25.12.2014. Thus the balance amount due is Rs.1,52,000/- . It was decided that within six months from the date of 30.8.2013 the deed of conveyance will be registered in respect of the plot . But O.P failed to do the same. Complainant requested the O.P time without number to register the sale deed in respect of schedule below proper on receipt of balance consideration money but it yielded no result. Hence, this case praying for directions upon the O.P to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the schedule property on receiving the balance consideration money, compensation of Rs.50,000/-  for causing harassment and torture, mental agony, litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

The case is proceeding in exparte against the O.P in view of order no.6 dated 3.8.2016.

            Points for decision in this case is;

1. Whether this case is adjudicable  by this Forum or not.
2. Whether the complainant is a Consumer or not.
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps or not.
4. Whether the complainant is eligible to get relief as prayed for partly or fully.

Decision with reasons

            All the points are taken together as they are interlinked.

            Even after valid service of notice the O.P did not appear for which case is running in exparte against the O.P.

            After scrutinizing vividly the complaint case filed on affidavit and all other documents brought before this Forum by the complain ant through his ld. Advocate and hearing the argument at full length from the complainant in person, it appears that the complainant has entered into an agreement for sale for purchasing a plot but in four corners of the case there is no whisper about the transfer of plot in question after development. Of the land in question by the developer

            In this regard we are highlighting the definition of service under the purviews of Section 2(1)(o ) of the C.P Act, 1986 amended up to date. As per section 2(1)( o ) of the C.P Act, 1986 promoting or development of flat or plot is under the purview of the C.P Act which is once again established by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the landmark decision in the case against Lucknow Development Authority

            In the instant case , it is a pure case of transfer of property i.e. sale in simpliciter which is not at all within the purview of the C.P Act, 1986. Automatically this Forum being the Consumer Forum has no power to adjudicate such case where only transfer of property i.e. sale in simpliciter is concerned.

            Therefore, in light of the above discussion, the case of the complainant is liable to be dismissed without cost for want of jurisdiction and the first point for discussion is against the complainant and as such there is no need to discuss about the other points.

            Thus the complaint case fails.

            Hence,

                                                            Ordered

That the case be and the same is dismissed in exparte without cost for want of jurisdiction with liberty to file the case afresh on selfsame cause of action at the appropriate court of Law.

Let a plain copy of judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rule.

 

 

Member                                   Member                                                           President

 

 

Dictated and corrected by me

 

 

 

                        Member

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The judgment in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

 

Ordered

That the case be and the same is dismissed in exparte without cost for want of jurisdiction with liberty to file the case afresh on selfsame cause of action at the appropriate court of Law.

Let a plain copy of judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rule.

 

 

Member                                   Member                                                           President