28......30.05.2022....
Today is fixed for delivery of judgment/final order.
Final order containing 5 pages is ready. It is sealed, signed and delivered in open Forum/Commission.
It is,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the O.P. with cost of Rs.10,000/-.
The O.P. is directed to complete the construction work of the scheduled property (shop room) and to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the same to the complainant within 60 days hence.
The O.P. is also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the complainant for non-completion of the construction work of the scheduled property (shop room) within time and for not giving vacant and peaceful possession of the scheduled property (shop room) within the stipulated time.
The complainant is at liberty to put the order into execution after 60 days if the orders are not complied with by the O.P. within the stipulated period as aforesaid.
Let a copy of the order be sent / supplied free of cost to the parties concerned.
The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SOUTH 24-PARGANAS
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 144
C.C.NO._106_ OF 2019
DATE OF FILING DATE OF ADMISSION DATE OF FINAL ORDER
30.07.2019 19.08.2019 30.05.2022
Present : President : Ashoke Kumar Pal
Member : Jagadish Chandra Barman
Member : Sangita Paul
COMPLAINANT : 1. Dipika Bose, Wife of Ashit Kumar Bose.
322, Mahamayatala, ( Behind Milani Club ), P.O. Garia, P.S.- Narendrapur, Kolkata- 700084, South 24 Parganas.
Versus
O.P/O.Ps : 1. Tapash Kumar Das , S/O Late Kshirod Chandra Das.
520, Peyarabagan, Near Vivekanana Samsad Club, P.O.- Laskarpur, P.S.- Narendrapur ( Formerly - Sonarpur ), South 24 Parganas, Kolkata- 700153.
Sri Ashoke Kumar Pal, President.
Stripped of unnecessary details, the case of the complainant in a nutshell is that the complainant entered into an oral agreement to purchase a space for shop measuring about 97 Sq.ft. more or less at premises No. 289, Rabindranagar, ‘Ramkrishna Apartment’, Jhilpar Road, Kolkata – 700153 at a valuable consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The O.P. receiving full consideration amount executed and registered the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant but did not give vacant and peaceful possession of the scheduled property in favour of the complainant. The O.P. also did not complete the construction work of the scheduled property which the complainant purchased to run a business but could not do so as the O.P. did not complete the construction work and did not give the vacant and peaceful possession of the same to the complainant. Notice was sent through Ld. Advocate dated 10.08.2018 to the O.P. but no fruitful result was achieved which prompted the complainant to file the instant case on the reliefs sought for in the petition of complaint.
The O.P. initially contested the suit by filing W.V. and evidence on affidavit. The complainant also submitted evidence in support of her. But ultimately the O.P. did not come forward to contest the case and from the order No. 20 dated 28.07.2021 it appears that the instant case proceeded ex-parte against the O.P. The O.P. failed to provide proper service to the complainant. Acts of the O.P. tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant had to face huge monetary loss and mental suffering and hence, this case has been filed seeking relief.
Both the parties of this case reside and the scheduled property falls within the jurisdiction of this Commission. The cause of action of this case starts from 22nd June, 2017 on the day of registration of the deed of conveyance and on 10.08.2018 when the complainant sent Advocate’s letter to the O.P. and is still continuing.
- The complainant prayed for completion of the construction of the scheduled property.
- Direction upon the O.P. to give vacant and peaceful possession of the scheduled property.
- Compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for non-completion of the construction work within time.
- Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for not giving possession to the complainant in time.
- Cost of the suit.
Initially although the O.P. contested the case by filing W.V. and evidence on affidavit but ultimately did not come forward to contest the case since 31.01.2022 and as such the case proceeded ex-parte against the O.P.
POINTS OF CONSIDERATION :
- Is the complainant a consumer?
- Is the O.P. guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice?
- Is the complainant entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
DECISIONS WITH REASONS :
Point No. 1:
The complainant purchased the scheduled property (shop room) at a total consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/- and a deed of conveyance was also executed and registered in favour of the complainant by the O.P. but ultimately the O.P. did not complete the construction work of the scheduled property (shop room) and also did not deliver the vacant and peaceful possession of the same to the complainant despite Advocate’s notice. Thus when the complainant made full payment to the O.P. and as such the complainant is no doubt a consumer as per provision of the C.P. Act, 2019. So, Point No. 1 goes in favour of the complainant.
Point No. 2 :
The complainant despite payment of the entire consideration amount and execution and registration of the deed of conveyance by the O.P. in favour of the complainant but ultimately the O.P. neither completed the construction work of the scheduled property (shop room) nor gave the vacant and peaceful possession of the same in favour of the complainant for which the complainant sent Advocate’s letter to the O.P. Thus, it appears that the O.P. failed and neglected to provide proper service to the complainant despite receiving the consideration amount. The complainant could not run her shop room. The act of the O.P. amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant had to face mental suffering and harassment as well as huge financial loss. Hence, the O.P. is guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, Point No. 2 also goes in favour of the complainant.
Point No. 3:
The complainant had to face huge financial loss after purchasing the scheduled property (shop room) as the complainant could not open / start the business in the said shop room. The O.P. did not complete the construction work and hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the scheduled property (shop room) to the complainant to run her business. Thus, the complainant had to face huge financial loss. Being a service provider, the O.P. failed to render proper service to the complainant. The O.P. also harassed the complainant by this way or that even after payment of the entire consideration amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- and registration of the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant. Hence, the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for. So, Point No. 3 also goes in favour of the complainant.
In the result, the complaint case succeeds as the complainant has succeeded to prove her case as made out ex-parte.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the O.P. with cost of Rs.10,000/-.
The O.P. is directed to complete the construction work of the scheduled property (shop room) and to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the same to the complainant within 60 days hence.
The O.P. is also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the complainant for non-completion of the construction work of the scheduled property (shop room) within time and for not giving vacant and peaceful possession of the scheduled property (shop room) within the stipulated time.
The complainant is at liberty to put the order into execution after 60 days if the orders are not complied with by the O.P. within the stipulated period as aforesaid.
Let a copy of the order be sent / supplied free of cost to the parties concerned.
The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Ashoke Kumar Pal
President
