DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C.C. No.136/2021
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
16.08.2021 29.09.2021 02.06.2023
Complainant/s:- | 1.Sri Sujeeb Chalraborty, S/o. Late Shyama Prasad Chakraborty, 15, Kripanath Lane, P.S. Shyam Pukur, Kolkata-700005. = Vs= |
Opposite Party/s: | 1.Housing Developer, 93, Raja Ram Chand Ghat Road, P.O. Panihati, P.S. Khardah, Dist- North 24 Parganas. Represented by its sole Proprietor:- 2.Sri Bholanath Mondal, S/o. Late Mahadeb Mondal, School Road, P.O. Sukchari Kalitala, P.S. Khardah, Dist- North 24 Pgs. 3.Gouranga Bandopadhyay. 4.Swapan Bandopadhyay. 5.Mrs. Sumita Sanyal (Bandopadhyay). 6.Mrs. Sujata Chatterjee ( Bandopadhyay) All sons and daughters of Late Hirendranath Bandopadhyay. 7. Samir Kumar Bandopadhyay, S/o. Late Anil Kumar Bandopadhyay. 8(a)Debal Chakrabort, S/o. Late Debasish Chakraborty. 8(b) Debomita Chakraborty, D/o. Late Debasish Chakraborty, 346A/1, Mahendra Banerjee Road, P.O. Parnasree, P.s. Behala, Kolkata-700060. 9.Partha Bandopadhyay. 10.Mrs. Joyashree Bandopadhyay 11.Mrs. Tanushree Bandopadhyay. 12.Mrs. Sutapa Bandopadhyay. 13.Mrs. Gopa Bandopadhyay. All sons and daughters of Late Surya Kumar Bandopadhyay. 14. Smt. Mousumi Bandopadhyay. 15.Smt. Mahuya Bandopadhyay. Both are daughter of Late Sudhir Kumar Bandopadhyay. 16.Sri Aditya Bandopadhyay. 17.Sri Jayanta Bandopadhyay. Both sons of Late Sudhangshu Kumar Bandopadhyay. 18.Sri Sadananda Bandopadhyay. Contd/-2 C.C. No.136/2021 :: 2 :: 19.Sri Nityananda Bandopadhyay, Both sons of Late Hemendra Kumar Bandopadhyay, O.P. Nos. 2 to 6 and 7 and 8 to 19 are residing at Dr. Lalmohan Banerjee Road, P.O. Panihati, P.S. Khardah, Dist- North 24 Parganas, Kolkata. |
P R E S E N T :- Smt. Sukla Sengupta………………….President
:- Smt. Monisha Shaw …………………. Member.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu …………………. Member.
JUDGMENT
The complainant filed this case u/s. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The facts of the case is as follows:-
The O.P. No.1 is a constructional Firm and O.P. No.2 is sole proprietor of O.P. No.1and / or developer and O.P. No.3 to 19 are the land owners of the property. The said land owners and developer made an agreement for develop one multistoried building upon amalgamated holding No.133, Dag No. 1248, Khatian No. 984, R.S. Khatian No. 1929, Mouza- Panihati at Lalmohan Banerjee Road, Ward No.4, within Panihati Municipality, P.S. Khardah, Dist- North 24 Pgs, within the jurisdiction of this commission. O.P- developer sanctioned a building from Panihati Municipality being sanction plan No. 1116 dated 25.02.2002.
The details of schedule mentioned in the complaint. The complainant is permanently residing which mentioned in cause title of complaint and the complainant purchased the schedule ‘B’ properly which are mentioned in the complaint. The complainant agreed to purchase a flat being No.7, on the third floor (South West side) measuring about 750 Sq.ft with all common amenity at multistoried building situated upon the land at amalgamated holding No.133 (previously holding No. 133 to 139, Dag No. 1248, under Khatian No. 984, R.S. Khatian No.1929, J.L. No.19, R.S. No.32, Touzi No.155, Mouza Panihati at Lal Mohan Banerjee Road, Ward No.4, within Panihati Municipality, P.S. Khardah, Dist- North 24 Parganas. The said project was named as ‘Moumi Apartment’. The said flat was booked for total consideration money of Rs. 3,75,000/-. The complainant paid full consideration amount on different dates even by taking loan from HDFC Bank being loan account accordingly the O.P. issued two money receipts. The O.P. developer handed over the possession of the said flat. After payment of full consideration amount the complainant on several occasion went to the O.P. No.2 and/ or office of O.P. No.1 for registration the said flat (which is mentioned in ‘B’ schedule of complaint) but on every occasion the
Contd/-3
C.C. No.136/2021
:: 3 ::
developer delayed the matter with plea of false pretext that some time is required for his personal inconveniences and delayed the matter for registration the Deed of conveyance. Thereafter in the year 2005 O.P developer orally informed that a civil litigation are pending before the competent court against land owners and also submits that the land owners cunningly failed and neglected to hand over the total land as per development agreement. Other O.Ps were never whisper about any litigation regarding the said matter. Suddenly complainant came to know that landlady Renu Bandopadhyay died on 01.12.2006 leaving O.P. Nos. 7 and 8. Thereafter O.P. No.2the developer refused to register the deed of conveyance. It is mentioned that the said complainant purchased the said flat from the allocation of the developer. Later, It was also heard from the developer that the said civil disputed matter with the developer and land lord was solved.
After died of one of the landlady Renu Bandopadhyay on 01.12.2006 the power of attorney being No. 315/2000 was seized and has lost its force. The present landowners directly shouted that due to unfair acts of O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 they are also badly deprived as such they have nothing to do. Complainant became the victim of circumstances and unfair acts of all the O.P members who were / are individually selfish to gain their / its own profit. By that time one after another land owners died leaving behind the legal heirs and succession. On 19.09.2009 Surya Kumar Bandopadhyay died in tested leaving behind present O.P. Nos. 9 to 13 intested leaving behind the present O.P. Nos.3 to 6 (as wife died in 16.12.2018) and thereafter on 04.11.2013 Sudhanshu Kumar Bandopadhyay died leaving behind O.P. Nos. 16 and 17 as legal heir and numerous and on 26.10.2016 Sudhir Kumar Bandopadhyay died leaving his heir being O.P.No.14 and 15. Complainant along with other purchasers went to the developer many time for execute the deed of conveyance in respect of ‘B’ schedule property mentioned in the complaint and handed over completion certificate and every occasion the developer wants some time. But lastly complainant went to the developer in the last part of April, 2021 for execution and registration for Deed of conveyance and hundred over the completion certificate but O.P developer refused to do the same. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint case. The case is within the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction of this commission. The notices served upon the opposite parties but they did not appear before this Commission. This ia a continuous cause of action as the O.P(s) are failed and neglected to fulfil the terms of agreement for sale or to invite the registration work and handed over completion certificate. It
is negligence on the part of the developer and other opposite parties as it is breach of duty caused by omission to do execution for registration of Deed of conveyance and handover the completion certificate.
Contd/-4
C.C. No.136/2021
:: 4 ::
Issue raised for delivery judgment
1 Whether the case is maintainable or not?
2.Whether the case filed within time or not?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or reliefs or not?
Reason for Judgment
Complainant booked a flat being No.7 on the 3rd floor (South-West side) which mentioned in schedule ‘B’ of the complaint for a consideration money of Rs.3,75,000/-. The complainant paid Rs.3,75,000/-as full and final payment. The O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 issued receipts and for full consideration amount and signed by O.P. No.2 as owner of the firm and /or developer. Though in the year 2003 the O.P developer handed over the possession of the flat. But it was the duty of the developer and landowners to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant which is negligence on the part of the O.P. members and also deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.
In this case complainant is a consumer and opposite parties are service provider as per Consumer Protection Act but the opposite parties failed and neglected to provide their service which will be treated as deficiency of service. Regarding limitation for filling the case we found that it is continuous cause of action shall run till registration of the Deed of Conveyance and handed over the completion certificate. The developer refused lastly on last part of April, 2021. Therefore, this case is filed within limitation period. As the developer received full consideration amount and handed over physical possession. The land owners made development agreement with developer therefore both are liable to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance and handed over the completion certificate.
The complainant proves his case so he is entitled to get relief.
Hence,
it is ordered,
that the case being No. 136/2021 be and the same is allowed exparte as opposite parties did not appear this case.
It is hereby directed the opposite parties to execute the deed of conveyance and register the Deed of Conveyance of the suit property before competent authority and handed over completion certificate to the complainant with Rs. 10,000/- for litigation cost within two months from the date of judgment.
Failing which this complainant has liberty to file execute case as per law.
Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.
Dictated & Corrected by me
Member
Member Member President
