DIST. CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESAL  COMMISSION

NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.

 C.C. No.208/2018

Date of Filing:                       Date of Admission:                 Date of Disposal:

    14.05.2018                           22.05.2018                                          27.9.2023

P R E S E N T                 :-    Smt. Manisha Shaw………………Member.

                                        :-     Sri.  Abhijit Basu      ……………… Member.

          JUDGMENT

          The complainant filed a complaint case as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

          The brief facts of the case is complainant with the intention for purchasing the flat of measuring about -720 sq.ft. being flat No. GB, Ground floor, Binayak Niketan, 170 Purba Pally, P.O. Sodepur, P.S. Khardah, Kolkata-700110 for a consideration amount of Rs. 14,76,000/-. The complainant paid entire consideration amount Rs.. 14,76,000/-. The complainant submits that she also paid the service charge of Rs. 44,496/-. Complainant also submits that complainant paid Rs. 15,000/-for electric meter connection. The O.P. No.1 issued possession letter on 20.01.2014 and the complainant is in possession of the flat. The complainant requested several times to O.P(s) for registration the deed conveyance of said flat but in vain. Lastly on 28.02.2018 send demand notice, O.P. No.1was response but other opposite parties did not response. The opposite parties did not register the Deed of Conveyance. Hence, the complainant filed this case.

Contd/-2

C.C. No.208/2018

:: 2 ::

          Here O.P. No.1 is the prompter of project and O.P. Nos. 2 to 6 were represented by their constituted attorney Smt. Jolly Dey.

          The complainant alleged that opposite parties are creating pressure to get the said flat property i.e. schedule property registered by their (O.Ps) chosen advocate by payment of exorbitant fees. The complainant is not agreed for payment of exorbitant fees. Compelling circumstances complainant filed this case before this Forum.

          After serving the notices upon the opposite parties.

          O.P. No.1 appeared and other opposite parties did not appeared before this forum even after receiving notices.

          The O.P submits and admitted that O.P. No.1 entered into an agreement with complainant. The O.P admitted that the complainant paid Rs. 14,40,000/- and Rs. 44,490/- for service tax but O.P demanding Rs. 36,000/-for balance consideration amount and Rs, 40,000/- for extra work. The O.P No.1 submits that O.P. No.2 and O.P. No.5 expired. It is mention that opposite party no 1 submitted Written Version in the year 2018 and complainant received Written Version on 12.11.2018. In Written Version filed by the o.p.no 1  in para18© O.P  o.p. stated that o.p.no- 1came to know that o.p. no2 and 5are demised. so, from12.11.2018 it came notice before the complainant that the o.p. no 2and 5are expired. All the legal heirs details are mentioned in the development agreement. The O.P submits that after demise of O.P. No.2 named Asharani Mukherjee his son and three daughters became the owner of schedule property. The opposite party submits that the complainant is well aware about the death of the O.P. No.2 and O. P.No.5 because all are residing over same property  and O.p. mentined the information of death regarding o.p. no.2 & 5 in written version in the year 2018 but knowing all the matter the complainant did not substitute them as add party of the legal heir of opposite party No.2 and O.P. No.5. The O.P raised question at his argument that how this commission shall pass decree against deceased person for register the document and / or deed of conveyance.

Issue framed for the purpose of decision

1. Whether the case is maintainable or not?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or reliefs in this case or not?

Reason for Judgment

          The complainant paid entire consideration money for purchase the said flat  hence here complainant is a consumer as per Consumer Protection Act. The opposite parties are service provider but they did not execute the deed and register the deed of conveyance which is deficiency of the service on the part of the opposite parties, which will be treated as deficiency of service. In the instant

Contd/-3

C.C. No.208/2018

:: 3 ::

case after expiry of the O.P. No.2 and 5 the complainant did not taken any proper steps for substitute and add the legal heirs of opposite parties till date fixed i.e. completion of argument. The complainant is well aware about the demise of O.P. No.2and O.P. No.5. We are in view that this commission could not pass any such order against the deceased person for execute and register deed of conveyance.

It is mentioned that in written version filed by o.p. no.1 in para 18( c) that o.p. No.2 and 5 expired.

The facts regarding expire of O.p. No.2 and 5 came to knowledge of the Complainant on 12/11/2018 as per case record but the Complainant did not taken any steps within statutory period. Even the Complainant did not filed any substitution petition before complete the argument i.e. on 12.4.23, after open and/ or disclose all points by both the parties.

After five years complainant filed a substitution  petition without any death certificate and without mentioning any name of the legal heirs of the deceased after conclusion of the argument and after complete the hearing of clarification of this case. The substitution petition is not also in proper form as stated above hence it is rejected.

This Commission cannot pass any judgment against any deceased person. It is admitted by both the parties that O.p. No.2 & 5 are expired. Complainant is not taken any steps within statutory period even after full knowledge of the facts.

The Complainant did not taken any steps till disposal of argument stage.

Considering the said facts and circumstances of the case and considering all documents and petition and complaint and objection filed by both the parties. We are in view that this commission could not pass such order as prayed by the complainant upon deceased persons. The case is heard with contest as O.p. No.1 appeared and heard exparte against other O.p.s.

Hence,

              it is ordered,

                    that the case being No. 208/2018 be and the same is dismissed with contest with a liberty to file a case afresh by the complainant.

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