National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Bhanu Rajkhowa Konwar vs Satyendra Mohan Dastidar, Director & 2 ... on 2 July, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI CONSUMER CASE NO. 324 OF 2014 1. BHANU RAJKHOWA KONWAR A-104, Utsav Residency, New C.G. Road, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad - 382 424 ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. SATYENDRA MOHAN DASTIDAR, DIRECTOR & 2 ORS. M/s. Heritage Engineers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ashirwad Appartment, Mathura Dwarka Road, Sakuntala Path, 50th Bylane (Behind Down Town Hospital), G.S. Road, Guwahati - 781 006. Assam 2. Shri. Arabinda Saikia, Chairman, Ashirwad Apartment Housing Society, Ashirwad Appartment, Mathura Dwarka Road, Sakuntala Path, 5th Bylane (Behind Down Town Hospital), G.S. Road, Guwahati - 781 006 Assam 3. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, ONGC Complex, Palavasana Branch (7466), Mehsana - 384003 Gujarat ...........Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
For the Complainant : Mr. Mukesh Kulshrestha, Advocate For the Opp.Party :
Dated : 02 Jul 2015 ORDER
JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
1.The key question in this case swirls round the question of pecuniary jurisdiction of National Commission which starts from Rupees one crore.
2. Smt. Bhanu Rajkhowa Konwar is a Nurse Grade-I in Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., Ahmedabad Asset Dispensary, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad. She was also posted at Mehsana Asset Dispensary. After getting details from his brother Dr. Nikhil Rajkhowa, she purchased a flat from Mr. Satyendra Mohan Dastidar, Director-OP-1 at her native State Guwahati City. Deed agreement was entered into between the parties on 19.05.2006. Its photocopy has been placed on the record as Annexure-I. The cost of flat was Rs.10,00,000/-, which she paid out of her savings and took loans from relatives in the sum of Rs.6,00,000/- and State Bank of India, Mehsana-OP-3.
3. The complainant got the possession of the flat immediately vide Annexure -2. The occupation of flat was given to her relative through her brother, Dr. Nikhil Rajkholwa, presently posted at Govt. Medical College Hospital, Jorhat, Assam, for looking after the flat during her absence. Due to her posting/duties in Mehsana/Ahmedabad and her husband Dr. K.K. Knwar, ACMO, presently at ONGHC Cambay Asset, Cambay, they were unable to look after her flat at Guwahati. After possession of the flat, Guwahati Municipal Corporation house registration formalities and Electricity Connection from ASEB etc. were completed. She was allotted Holding No. 1344, Ward No. 51 vide Annexure-3. During that period, she purchased furniture, fixtures and fittings (including 3 ceiling fans, Beds Sofa sets and curtains etc.). Her brother Dr. Nikhil Rajkhowa was transferred to Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh in September 2008. He stayed there upto February 2010. In March 2010 he was posted at Medical College, Jorhat Assam and is still there.
4. After November 2006 to August 2008, her brother was busy due to his services in Medical Health Department as well as he had to attend/participate medical conferences/seminars etc. During the said period, the builder took the possession of her flat back tactfully from her relative who was occupying and looking after the flat in the absence of both the complainant as well as her brother. It is alleged that OP-1 cheated her and did mischief with her property. The above said action was done by the builder on account of location of property is in North East sector of India. Her brother came to know about these facts and raised objection before the builder but he did not give any satisfactory reply. Thereafter his brother used to contact the builder, as and when he was getting time for taking back possession of the flat but the builder took it differently. In February/March 2010, her brother was transferred to Medical College Hospital Jorhat. Thereafter, both brother and sister met the builder during the period of 5 years (2007-2012) for sorting out the problem in connection with the flat. That due to fear and terrorist activities, she could not take proper action. She also approached Manager S.B.I, Mehsana-OP-3 and informed it about the same. The correspondences went on but the OP did not respond.
5. The complainant got information under RTI Act 1985 for knowing actual occupant in her flat from Sh. Arabinda Saikia, Chairman-OP-2. On 29/30.07.2013 vide Annexure -8. He replied on 07.08.2013 that till now no documents have been handed over legally by the Builder to the Committee.
6. We have heard the counsel for the complainant at the time of admission of this case. We tried to make him understand that this Commission does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this case. It is unfortunate that the learned counsel did not consider this aspect. He arrogantly refused to listen to us and informed that he will adduce the evidence regarding quantum of compensation in the sum of Rupees one crore or more at the relevant time.
7. As neither there is evidence nor pleading that value of this case exceeds Rupees one crore, therefore, we hereby dismiss this case. It is made clear that the Complainant has not received the title papers of the premises in dispute. The case cannot be held to be time barred unless or until she gets the sale deed executed in her favour and has got the title deeds in her possession. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the District Forum for redressal of her grievance, as per law.
......................J J.M. MALIK PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER