State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri Anup Mitra &Ors.; vs Smt. Shatorupa Dutta & Anr. on 30 August, 2013
D R A F T
State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission
West Bengal
BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND
FLOOR)
31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE
KOLKATA 700 027
S.C. CASE NO.
: FA/754/2013
(Arising out
of order dated 02.07.2013 of Case No. EA/17/2013 of D.C.D.R.F., South 24 Pgs.)
Date of Filing : 12.07.2013 Date of Final Order : 30.08.2013
APPELLANTS/COMPLAINANTS :
1) Sri Anup Mitra
2) Sri Ashim Kumar Mitra
3) Sri Aroop Mitra
All sons of Late Byomkesh Mitra,
All residing at 153, Mahamayatala,
Mondal Para, P.O. Garia,
Kolkata 700084, Ward No. 28,
Rajpur
Sonarpur Municipality,
P. S. Sonarpur.
RESPONDENTS/O.P.S :
1. Smt. Shatorupa Dutta
Wife of Ronit Datta
of Kanaklata Apartment,
1st floor, Mahamayatala, P.O. Garia,
P.S. Sonarpur, Kolkata 700084.
2. Sri Ranjit Das
Son of Sri Ramlal Das, Prop. Of
Pratima Construction, 87, Santigarh
Colony, Kolkata 700040, P.S.
Jadavpur.
BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE : Sri Kalidas
Mukherjee,
President.
MEMBER : Sri S. Coari.
MEMBER : Smt. Mridula Roy.
FOR THE PETITIONER /
APPELLANT : Mr. Amit Kumar Middya,
Ld. Advocate.
FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S. : Mr. Partha Sarathi
Kashyapi, Ld. Advocate.
Ms. Suchismita Basu,
Ld. Advocate.
: O R D E R :
S. COARI, MEMBER.
The present appeal under Section 27A of the Act has been preferred against the order passed by Ld. District Forum, South 24 Pgs. in EA/17/13 wherein the Ld. District Forum disposed of the execution case thereby Sri Subhendu Das, Ld. Commissioner supervise the unfinished construction work in the project in question and the parties i.e. Decree Holder and JDR Nos. 1 to 4 were directed to pay Ld. Advocate Commissioner a sum of Rs.300/- each i.e. a sum of Rs.1,500/- in total provisionally per day.
The Complaint Case being No. CC/02/2012 was disposed of by the Ld. District Forum, South 24 Pgs. with the observation that O.P. Nos. 1, 2 & 3 ready and willing to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance and, as such, the Complainant who is the consumer purchaser of the flat in question was entitled to the relief as prayed for and the O.Ps were directed to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance after getting balance payment of Rs.65,000/- from the Complainant. Since the O.Ps did not comply with the directions of the Ld. District Forum the Execution Case being No. EA/17/13 was filed by the Complainant Decree Holder. While disposing of the execution case the executing court has observed that due to non-cooperation that JDR No. 4 could not complete the construction as there was obstruction at the instance of the JDR Nos. 1, 2 & 3.
The case of the JDR Nos. 1, 2 & 3 was to the fact that as there was price hike in the respective building materials the construction work could not be completed. In order to obviate such practical problems appointed as Advocate Commissioner to oversee the construction work and if necessary was permitted to take police help in case JDR Nos. 1 to 3 cause any disturbance and/or obstruction in the construction work and in the process Ld. Executing Court directed to JDR Nos. 1 to 4 to pay Ld. Advocate Commissioner a sum of Rs.300/- each i.e. a sum of Rs.1,500/- provisionally per day and also fixed a date for compliance report.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with such order passed by Ld. District Forum O.P. No. 1 JDR has preferred the present appeal under Section 27A.
The only moot question that revolves round the present appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified in disposing of the complaint case in the manner as discussed above.
DECISION WITH REASONS :
At the time of hearing the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted before us that Ld. District Forum without appreciating the actual state of affairs has passed the impugned order which is not at all sustainable under the law. According to Ld. Advocate, the Appellant is admittedly landowner and he has got no role to play in the matter of completion of construction of the building project. While elaborating on this point Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted before us that when the landowners have voluntarily agreed to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Complainant purchaser and the original complaint case has been accordingly disposed of there was no point on the part of the executing court to impose some monetary payment in the form of fees of the Ld. Advocate Commissioner which is extremely detrimental to the interest of the landlord Appellant and on this score alone the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
We have duly considered the submission so put forward on behalf of the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant and also gone through the materials on record including the impugned order and find that as the order was not complied with at the instance of the JDRs including the present Appellant, executing court had to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to oversee the construction work in presence of the parties and in the process as directed the JDRs including the present Appellant to pay Ld. Advocate Commissioners fees provisionally. The Appellant JDR No. 1 has taken a standpoint to the effect that since the Appellant is agreeable to abide by the order of the Ld. District Forum, question monetary liability in the form of Advocate Commissioners fee is not at all tenable under the law and on this score alone the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
We have carefully gone through the impugned order and find that Ld. District Forum has really appreciated the actual state of affairs including the practical problem that has been created at the instance of the JDRs including the present Appellant. We find nothing wrong in the order passed by the Ld. District Forum appointing an Advocate Commissioner to oversee the unfinished construction work in presence of JDRs thereby directing the JDRs including the present Appellant to pay Advocate Commissioners fee provisionally.
If that be the position, we find no merit in the present appeal which, in our opinion, should be dismissed.
In the result, the appeal fails.
Hence, ordered that the appeal stands dismissed on contest but without any order as to costs. The impugned order stands confirmed.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT