National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Milan Kanti Dutta vs Dr. Tushar Kanti Sinha & 4 Ors. on 8 January, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2174 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 29/05/2015 in Appeal No. 891/2012 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. MILAN KANTI DUTTA S/O LATE RAMESH CHANDRA DATTA 23 SITAL BARI ROAD, PO NONACHANDANPUKUR BARRACKPORE, PS TITAGARH, 24 PARGANAS WEST BENGAL 2. MILAN KANTI DUTTA PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: 3 NO. FEEDER ROAD, MONDAL PARA, PO TALPUKUR, PS TITAGARH 24 PARGANAS NORTH ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. DR. TUSHAR KANTI SINHA & 4 ORS. S/O LATE SADANANDA SINHA OF KAMALA APARTMENT, FLAT NO. 38A SMP SARANI,PO BARRACKPORE PS TITAGARH 24 PARGANAS WEST BENGAL 2. DR. TUSHAR KANTI SINHA PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: 64/98 C KHUDIRAM BOSE SARANI, SALBONI BUILDING, MOHUL BLOCK, FLAT C 902, PO BELGACHIA, PS ULTADANGA KOLKATA-700037 WEST BENGAL 3. SMT. RITA SEN W/O LATE PROVASH SEN, RESIDING AT 38 S.P.M. SARANI, PO BARRACKPORE, PS TITAGARH NORTH 24 PARGANAS WEST BENGAL 4. SRI KAUSHIK SEN S/O LATE PROVAS SEN, RESIDING AT 38 S.P.M. SARANI, PO BARRACKPORE, PS TITAGARH NORTH 24 PARGANAS WEST BENGAL 5. SMT. DEBASHREE GHOSH D/O LATE PROVASH SEN,RESIDING AT 38 S.P.M. SARANI, PO BARRACKPORE, PS TITAGARH NORTH 24 PARGANAS WEST BENGAL 6. PRADIP KUMAR GHOSH S/O PRIYA LAL GHOSH TELINIPARA, PO SEWLI TELINIPARA, PS TATAGARH, NORTH 24 PARGANAS WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN, PRESIDENT HON'BLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : IN PERSON For the Respondent :
Dated : 08 Jan 2016 ORDER The short grievance of the Petitioner, who appears in person, is that the State Commission has erred in exonerating the other two partners, namely, Late Shiv Shankar Singara and Udip Kumar Ghosh, of the firm, namely, C-Durga Constructions, as the project in which the flat in question was to be allotted to the Complainant, was to be executed by all the three persons including the Petitioner. He, however, fairly concedes that the amount, which has been directed to be refunded to the Complainant by the State Commission, was received by him as booking amount. It is urged that the other two partners are in occupation of the two flats, whereas the Petitioner herein has been made to suffer the decree.
Having regard to the fact that admittedly the booking amount for sale of the flat to the Complainant had been received by the Petitioner, whether as an individual or in the capacity of the partner of the said Firm, he is liable to refund the said amount.
We do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting our interference under the revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Revision Petitions are dismissed.
It goes without saying that the dismissal of these Revision Petitions shall not preclude the Petitioner from taking recourse to appropriate remedy for recovery of the said amount from the other two partners of the stated Firm, if so advised.
......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA MEMBER