DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,

 KOLKATA-700 0144

      C.C. CASE NO. __53_ _ OF ___2018

DATE OF FILING : 4.5.2018         DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 20.12.2018

Present                      :   President       :   Ananta Kumar Kapri

                                        Member(s)    :    Subrata Sarker  & Jhunu Prasad

COMPLAINANT   :         1. Gourdas Banerjee, son of late Amulyaratan Banerjee

                                           2. Soumyadeep Banerjee, son of Gourdas Banerjee

                                           Both of Padmapukur Road, P.O & P.S Baruipur, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-700144.

                                                         -  VERSUS  -

O.P/O.Ps                         :  The Director, The Exhibitors Syndicate Limited, 5/3, Deshpriya Park, Kolkata – 29, Formerly 87, Lenin Sarani, Kolkata – 13.

_______________________________________________________________________

                                                            J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

Sri Ananta Kumar  Kapri, President

Non-fulfillment of the obligation in terms of the agreement reached between the parties has galvanized the complainants to file the instant case ,alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P for not refunding the consideration money paid to him by the complainant.

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

The complainants are unemployed persons and, therefore, they decided to start a business and to materialize their purpose they entered into an agreement with the O.P ,whereby the O.P agreed to sell a shop room to the complainants for a consideration price of Rs.15,21,000/- . A Memorandum of Agreement was also executed by the parties to that effect on 18.3.2018. The O.P agreed to execute and register the deed of conveyance in relation to the shop room as described succinctly in schedule to the complaint in favour of the complainants and also to deliver the possession of the said shop room to the complainants within a period of 24 months from the date of booking. But the possession of the shop room is yet to be delivered to the complainants. Registration of the said shop room has not also been made in favour of the complainants by the O.P. Constant persuasions by the complainants have also failed to yield any result and, therefore, the complainants have filed the instant case ,praying for return of the consideration price paid to the O.P and also for compensation etc. Hence, the case.

           The O.P has been contesting the case by filing written statement ,wherein it is mainly contended that the complainants have failed to make payment as per payment schedule agreed between the parties and, therefore, the possession of the shop room has not been delivered to the complainants. According to the O.P, he is ready and willing to deliver the possession of the shop room to the complainants, provided the complainants make the payment of the balance amount of consideration money to him.

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

POINTS  FOR DETERMINATION

1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P as alleged by the  complainant?
2. Are the complainants entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for?

EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES

Evidence on affidavit is filed on behalf of both the parties and the same are kept in the record after consideration.

DECISION WITH REASONS

 Point no.1  :

             It is argued on behalf of the O.P that the instant case is not maintainable in law because the complainants agreed to purchase a shop room for the purpose of their business. According to his submission, the complainant are not consumers and, therefore, the instant complaint is not maintainable.

            A minute perusal of the complaint reveals that the complainants wanted to purchase the shop room for starting a business. According to the complainants they are unemployed persons and, therefore, they want to start a business in the shop room sought to be purchased by them.  It is true that they have not stated in their complaint in so many words that they want to start a business for the purpose of earning their livelihood by means of self employment. The Law does not require that the words of statute should be reproduced in exact verbatim in the petition of complaint. Law requires that the status of the complainants is to be gathered, from the facts as averred in the petition of complaint and also presented in the evidence adduced by the complainants. It has been categorically stated by the complainants both in their pleadings and evidence that they are unemployed persons and, therefore, they want to start a business in the subject shop room. What more can be expected from the complainants. In our view, the above averments of the complainants is sufficient to establish that the complainants wanted to purchase the shop room for the purpose of earning livelihood by way of self-employment. It is not the case of the O.P that the complainants are established businessman and they want to expand their business by opening another outlet of their business. Regards being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, as transpiring in the record, we feel no hesitation to say that the complaint is quite maintainable in law.

            Now to see whether the complainants are entitled to get relief as prayed for. It transpires in the evidence on record that the complainants made an agreement with the O.P and the O.P also agreed to sell the subject shop room to the complainants for a consideration price of Rs.15,21,000/- . It also goes undisputed that the complainants have paid Rs.9,97,100/- i.e 75% of the consideration money to the O.P. Also undisputed is the fact that the possession of the subject shop room has not been handed over to the complainants and also that the registration of the said shop room has not been effected in favour of the complainants by the O.P. From the general terms and conditions of the booking, it is found that the O.P agreed to deliver the possession of the shop room to the complainants within 24 months from the date of booking. Booking was made by the complainants on 14.2.2013 and since then, 24 months have already passed away . But the possession of the subject shop room has not been delivered to the complainants by the O.P. The O.P seems to be a defaulter in so far as the terms and conditions of the agreement was concerned. This default on the part of the O.P in rendering the agreed services to the complainants is nothing but a sort of deficiency in service on his part. The complainants are ,therefore, entitled to relief or reliefs as prayed for.  

              In the result, the case succeeds.

            Hence,

ORDERED

             That the complaint case be and the same is  decreed on contest against the O.P with a cost of Rs.10,000/-.

               The O.P is directed to deliver the possession of the subject shop room to the complainants and also to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of that shop room in favour of the complainants within a month of this order, failing which, the complainants are entitled to get back the consideration price paid by them to the O.P i.e Rs.9,97,100/- with interest @15% p.a from the date of payment till full realization thereof.

              At the same time, the complainants are directed to make payment to the O.P or to deposit in the Forum the balance consideration money within a month of this order.

         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