State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Chhaya Shaw vs Bulloo Prasad on 29 December, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/1060/2016 (Arisen out of Order Dated 05/09/2016 in Case No. ea/61/2016 of District Howrah) 1. Mr. Chhaya Shaw W/o Gopal Prasad Shaw, 6, Jayabibi Road, Howrah, Ghusuri, P.O. - Ghusuri, P.S.- Malipanchghora, Howrah - 711 107. 2. Sri Dhanraj Shaw S/o Gopal Prasad Shaw, 6, Jayabibi Road, Howrah, Ghusuri, P.O. - Ghusuri, P.S.- Malipanchghora, Howrah - 711 107. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Bulloo Prasad S/o Lt. Sitaram Prasad, Flat no.A, 7,Jayabibi Road, Howrah, Ghusuri, P.O. - Ghusuri, P.S.- Malipanchghora, Howrah - 711 107. 2. Sumit Prasad S/o Lt. Sitaram Prasad, 7, Jayabibi Road, Howrah, Ghusuri, P.O. - Ghusuri, P.S.- Malipanchghora, Howrah - 711 107. 3. Gopal Shaw alias Gopal Prasad Kalwar S/o Lt. Basdeo Shaw, 7, Jayabibi Road, Howrah, Ghusuri, P.O. - Ghusuri, P.S.- Malipanchghora, Howrah - 711 107. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY PRESIDING MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Saptarshi Guha, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Khan Arif Hasan, Advocate Dated : 29 Dec 2017 Final Order / Judgement
A/1060/2016 Date of filing: 04.11.2016 Date of hearing: 08.12.2017 The present appeal Under Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for brevity, 'the Act') is at the instance of a third party (wife and son respectively of Opposite Party /Judgement Debtor) to assail the order No.5 dated 05.09.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Howrah (in short, Ld. District Forum) in Execution Case No. 61 of 2016 stems from Consumer Complaint No. 365/2015.
Having heard the Ld.Advocates for the appellants, respondent Nos. 1 & 2/Decree Holders and Respondent No.3/OP/Judgement Debtor and on perusal of the materials on record it would reveal that the respondent nos. 1 & 2 being complainants lodge a complaint against the respondent no.3 U/s. 12 of the Act before the Ld. District Forum on 03.11.2005 on the allegation of deficiency in services on the part of respondent no.3 in providing a self-contained flat measuring about 680 sq.ft. being flat no.A on the 1st floor in a G + 5 multi-storied building lying and situated at Holding No.7, Jaya Bibi Road, Ghusuri, P. S. - Malipanchghora, District - Howrah. The said complaint was allowed on 03.03.2016 with a direction upon the respondent no.3 to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of respondent nos. 1 & 2 within 30 days from the date of order and also to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/-.
The fact remains that on 07.07.2005 the respondent no.3 agreed to sold out the subject flat at a consideration of Rs.2,45,000/- in favourof respondent nos.1&2 and the respondent no 3 has received entire consideration amount from respondent nos 1&2. However, on 19.12.2005 the respondent no.3 surreptitiously transfers the property including the subject flat in favour of his wife and son, who are appellants herein. When the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 put the order in execution, the respondent no.3 was brought under arrest on 05.09.2016 and on that date he executed the sale deed in favour of respondent nos. 1 &2.
It would be pertinent to record that by Order No.10 dated 01.03.2017 the said execution case was disposed of on full satisfaction as the J.dr. has paid the amount towards full and final settlement.
Ld. Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the Ld. District Forum should have dismissed the complaint considering the pleadings and materials on record. When the respondent no.3 or the appellants did not challenge the order dated 03.03.2016 in CC/366/2015 by filing an appeal U/s. 15 of the Act, the respondent no.3 or the appellants have no authority to raise the question. The Ld. Advocate for respondent no.3 supports the contention of Ld . Advocate for the appellants simply for the reason that they are close relation to each other.
After giving due consideration to the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates for the respective parties and on going through the materials on record I find that there is nothing left open for consideration in this appeal because an Executing Court cannot go beyond its order. Naturally, an appeal arisen therefrom being not tenable in this manner, is also liable to be dismissed.
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed on contest. However, there will be no order as to costs.
The impugned order is hereby affirmed.
The Registrar of the Commission to send a copy of the order to the Ld.District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Howrah for information. [HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY] PRESIDING MEMBER