State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tapas Dutta vs Indranil Bhattacharjee on 18 November, 2015
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/172/2015 (Arisen out of Order Dated 19/08/2014 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/337/2014 of District South 24 Parganas DF, Alipore) 1. Tapas Dutta Neer, 73, Raja Ram Mohan Roy Road, 2nd Floor (Flat no. 3A), P.S.- Haridevpur, Kolkata -700 041. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Indranil Bhattacharjee (Prop., M/s A & B Developers), 300/4, N.S.C. Bose Road, P.S. Patuli, Kolkata -700 047. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Ray , Advocate For the Respondent: none appears ORDER Date of Hearing the 4th Day of November, 2015 Date of Judgment Wednesday, the 18th Day of November, 2015 JUDGMENT
The instant appeal is directed against the Order being No.02 dated 19.08.2014 passed by Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas at Alipore in Consumer Complaint Case No.337 of 2014 thereby rejecting the same on admission by giving liberty to take shelter before the appropriate Forum if not otherwise barred.
Being aggrieved with the said Order the Complainant has preferred the instant appeal.
The case of the Complainant, in brief, is that he entered into an agreement for sale with the Opposite Party on 30.09.2013 in respect of a flat having super built up area of 1041 sq. ft. and a car parking space of 130 sq. ft. at a consideration of Rs.40,00,000/- in total at the top floor of a proposed building situated at premises No.73, Raja Ram Mohan Roy Road, P.S. Haridevpur, Kolkata -700041. Subsequently, it was agreed by and between the parties that the consideration amount to be curtailed down and the same would be Rs.34,20,000/-. However, the Complainant paid the entire amount and the Opposite Party Developer delivered possession to him. After taking possession of the same the Complainant found that there were some defects in construction including the height of the car parking space which have been still persisting. The Complainant served notice dated 26.06.2014 upon the Opposite Party Developer demanding rectification of the defects but the same remained unheeded. Hence, the Complainant filed the complaint praying for direction upon the Opposite Party to refund Rs.3,57,296/- as paid by the Complainant towards consideration of car parking space and stamp duty Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation and not to sale the open space and car parking space of the said premises on admission hearing the Ld. District Forum found that value of the property in question is Rs.40,00,000/- although claim amount is much less than Rs.20,00,000/- which is well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum but the value of the property is not within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum and hence rejected the Complaint case.
Notice was served upon the Respondent but none appeared on behalf of him and, therefore, the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant was heard.
In course of hearing of the appeal, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that since the Ld. District Forum opined that the Ld. District Forum had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint case the Appellant (Complainant of the said Complaint Case) filed a Complaint Case being No.CC/325 of 2014 with the same cause of action before this Commission but while disposing a Miscellaneous Application (MA/644/2014) filed by the Opposite Party challenging maintainability of the Complaint Case this Commission vide Order dated 27.11.2015 held that the relief sought for was less that Rs.20,00,000/- and the same was not entertainable by this Commission, then where lies the remedy of the Complainant?
Having heard submission made by the Appellant and on perusal of the documents on record it appears that the Complainant in complaint case being No.CC/337 of 2014 has averred that the value of the property in question i.e. the flat and the car parking space as initially agreed by the parties was Rs.40,00,000/- and, thereafter, at Rs.34,20,000/-.
Section 11(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides - 'Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed 'does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs.' In the instant case, the value of the Service i.e. value of the flat and car parking space and the amount of relief exceeds the pecuniary limit of the Ld. District Forum.
Therefore, in our view, Ld. District Forum below rightly held that the Complaint case was not entertainable.
As regards the Order of this Commission dated 27.01.2015 in Consumer Complaint No.325 of 2014 as raised by the Appellant, we find that this Commission observed in that order, 'It appears that the Complainant previously filed Complaint Case No.337 of 2014 before the Ld. District Forum, Alipore, South 24 Parganas. Neither the copy of the Order passed by the Ld. District Forum nor the copy of the petition of complaint has been filed.' Curiously enough, the Appellant though referred the said order of this Commission in connection with Consumer Complaint No.325 of 2014 but did not take any pain to file copy of the petition of Complaint of CC/325 of 2014. Therefore, without going through the Petition of Complaint in CC/325/2014 we do not like to pass any comment regarding the Order dated 27.01.2015 as well as regarding the proper Forum or relief of the Complainant.
In the result, the appeal does not succeeds.
Hence, O R D E R E D that the instant appeal is dismissed ex-parte without any order as to cost. The impugned Order is affirmed. [HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY] MEMBER