State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

West Bengal

BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR)

31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE

KOLKATA – 700 027





S.C. CASE NO. FA/09/42



DATE OF FILING: 27.01.09

DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 30.04.2009


PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS


1) M/s. S.K.M. Enterprise

A sole proprietorship firm having its registered address at

134/2B/1, Upen Banerjee Road

P.S. – Behala, Kolkata 700 060

Represented by its sole proprietor

Smt. Susmita Maity

W/o Sri Kironmoy Maity residing at

12/7, Parnasree Pally

Kolkata – 700 060

2) Smt. Kamala Bala Maity

W/o Late Purna Chandra Maity residing at

134/2B/1, Upen Banerjee Road

P.S. – Behala, Kolkata – 700 060



RESPONDENTS/O.Ps.



1) Sri Gautam Banerjee

S/o Sri Tarapada Banerjee

By occupation Insurance Agent

2) Smt. Supti Banerjee

W/o Sri Gautam Banerjee

134/2B/1, Upen Banerjee Road

P.S. – Behala, Kolkata 700 060



BEFORE : HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT

MEMBER : MR. A.K. RAY

FOR THE PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS: Mr. G.C. Banerjee, Advocate

FOR THE RESPONDENTS/O.Ps. : Mr. R.K. Choumal, Advocate





: O R D E R :


HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT



This appeal was filed challenging order dated 30.12.08 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas in C.C. No.40 of 2008 whereby the complaint was allowed and OPs were directed to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance of the flat within a month from the date of the order and OP1 Developer was directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- as compensation for the harassment caused by him and another Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainants.

The facts in brief as stated in the complaint are that the complainant’s husband entered into an agreement with OPs 1 & 2 being the Developer and the owner respectively on 28.11.05 for purchase of a flat measuring 726 sq.ft. at a total consideration of Rs.7,20,000/-. The complainants paid the entire consideration to the OP1 by 8.5.06 as per terms of the agreement and they also paid Rs.4,000/- extra for utilizing the services of the Developer for marble setting at the floor of the flat, the materials having been supplied by them to the masons. The possession of the said flat was delivered to the complainant by the OPs on 10.5.06. As the OPs did not execute and register the Deed of Conveyance, the present complaint was filed by the complainant asking for execution of sale deed in respect of the said flat and to register the same, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the OPs and litigation cost of Rs.7,600/-.

Heard Mr. G.C. Banerjee, the Ld. Advocate for the Appellants and Mr. R.K. Choumal, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondents.

Contention of the Appellant is that the complainants are required to pay extra Rs.53,400/- to the OP1 as the OP1 did the work of marble floor in the flat according to the instructions of the complainants and the complainants have paid only Rs.4,000/- towards the labour charges for such extra work but the price of the floor has not been paid yet. It is contended that the complainants have produced bills dated 10.5.06 showing purchase of the marble for the said extra work of floor but the such purchase of marble by the complainants is neither correct nor believable as possession of the flat was given by the OPs to the complainants only on 10.5.06 on request of the complainants. It is contended that the OPs were not granted opportunity to cross examine the witnesses of the complainant.

Mr. Choumal, the Ld. Advocate for the Complainants Respondents contended that the marble flooring in the flat was done by the complainants themselves, purchasing the marble themselves and obtaining the labour from the Developer Appellant and for the said labour the requisite charges of Rs.4,000/- has been duly paid and nothing is due from the complainant to the OPs and, therefore, there is no ground for refusing execution and registration of the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the complainants by the appellants.

We have considered the contentions of the parties and we find that from the materials on record that the complainants have produced the bill showing payment for purchase of the marble and, therefore, we are of the opinion that complainants themselves purchase the marble. Moreover, the appellants completely failed to produce any material showing that they purchased the marble. Admittedly sum of Rs.4,000/- has been paid by the complainants over and above the total consideration agreed for the said flat.

Bothsides have adduced evidence by filing evidence on affidavit. On behalf of the appellants no separate receipt showing purchase of marble has been produced. A combined bill of the appellant has been relied on containing details. The same is dated 10.5.06. But extra Rs.4,000/- was paid on 02.01.06 as appears from the details furnished. Had the case of the appellant been correct, there would not have been such extra payment. These facts support the case of the complainant of payment of Rs.4,000/- as labour charge.

In above view of the findings we do not find the appellant have proved in any manner as regards their entitlement to the said sum of Rs.53,400/- or any part thereof. In such circumstances the appellant have no reason to refuse or delay execution and registration the deed. Accordingly we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order and same is hereby affirmed. The appeal is dismissed and there will be no order as to costs.







(A.K. Ray) (Justice A. Chakrabarti)

MEMBER PRESIDENT