State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri Virendra Kumar Sanghvi vs Sri Ketan C Doshi on 17 September, 2014
DRAFT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, MIRZA GHALIB STREET KOLKATA 700 087 S.C. CASE NO.FA/653/2012 (Arising out of order dated 27/08/12 in Case No.CC/273/2010 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I) DATE OF FILING:25/09/12 DATE OF FINAL ORDER:17/09/14 APPELLANT : Sri Virendra Kumar Sanghvi Sole Proprietor of M/s Guru Cotton Corporation 3, Woodburn Road Kolkata-700 020 [Appellant in all the Appeals] RESPONDENTS : 1) Sri Chandrakanta S Doshi
10A, Dr. Rajendra Road 4th Floor, Flat No.4B Kolkata-700 020
2) Sri Amar Kumar Das
3) Sri Gour Mohan Das
4) Smt. Kalyani Das
5) Sri Sasanko Das
6) Sri Dipankar Das
7) Smt. Sarbani Das All are residing at 23A, Ananda Banerjee Lane Kolkata-700 020 [Respondent (Nos.2 to 7) in all the Appeals] S.C. CASE NO.FA/654/2012 (Arising out of order dated 27/08/12 in Case No.CC/278/2010 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I) RESPONDENTS : 1) Sri Ramesh Ch. Mafatlal
2) Sri Dhirendra Mafatlal Shah Both are residing at 10A, Dr. Rajendra Road 4th Floor, Flat No.4A Kolkata-700 020 S.C. CASE NO.FA/655/2012 (Arising out of order dated 27/08/12 in Case No.CC/275/2010 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I) RESPONDENTS : 1) Smt. Bhavna Rajib Mehta & Smt. Chetna Bhavesh Mehta 10A, Dr. Rajendra Road 2nd Floor, Flat No.21 Kolkata-700 020 S.C. CASE NO.FA/656/2012 (Arising out of order dated 27/08/12 in Case No.CC/277/2010 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I) RESPONDENT : Sri Ketan C Doshi 10A, Dr. Rajendra Road 4th Floor, Flat No.4C Kolkata-700 020 S.C. CASE NO.FA/657/2012 (Arising out of order dated 27/08/12 in Case No.CC/274/2010 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I) RESPONDENTS : Sri Arun Kumar Dutta & Smt. Tapasi Dutta 10A, Dr. Rajendra Road 2nd Floor, Flat No.2B Kolkata-700 020 S.C. CASE NO.FA/658/2012 (Arising out of order dated 27/08/12 in Case No.CC/276/2010 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I) RESPONDENTS : 1) Sri Nipun Kothari
2) Sri Ramniklal Mohanlal Kothari
3) Smt. Kumudini Ranniklal Kothari All of 10A, Dr. Rajendra Road 3rd Floor, Flat No.3B Kolkata-700 020 S.C. CASE NO.FA/659/2012 (Arising out of order dated 27/08/12 in Case No.CC/279/2010 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I) RESPONDENTS : 1) Sri Pragnesh Patel
2) Smt. Smita Jagdish Chandra Patel
3) Smt. Bela Bindesh Patel All of 10A, Dr. Rajendra Road 3rd Floor, Flat No.3A Kolkata-700 020 BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE : Mr. Kalidas Mukherjee President HONBLE MEMBER : Mrs. Mridula Roy HONBLE MEMBER : Mr. Tarapada Gangopadhyay FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr. Prabir Basu Ld. Advocate Mr. Abhik Das Learned Advocate Mrs. Koyeli Mukhopadhyay Learned Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENTS : Mr. Debesh Halder Ld. Advocate Mr. Partha Sarathi Kashypi Learned Advocate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: O R D E R :
HONBLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT These seven Appeals being of identical nature are directed against the judgments and orders passed by the Ld. District Forum, Unit-I, Kolkata, in C.C. Case Nos. 273/2010 (FA/653/2012), 278/2010 (FA/654/2012), 275/2010 (FA/655/2012), 277/2010 (FA/656/2012), 274/2010 (FA/657/2012), 276/2010 (FA/658/2012) and 279/2010 (FA/659/2012), allowing the Complaints with direction upon the OPs to execute and register the Deeds of Conveyance in favour of the Complainants within 45 days from the date of communication of the order. The OP No. 1 was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 7,000/- i.d. interest @ 9% shall accrue on the said amount till realization with further direction upon the OP Nos. 2 to 7 to pay cost of Rs. 50/- per day.
The case of the Complainants/Respondents, in short, is that there was Development Agreement between the owners and the developer followed by execution of general Power of Attorney in favour of the OP No. 1, the Developer. The Complainants in each case entered into agreement for purchase of flat with the OP No. 1. The registration has not been done. Under the circumstances, the Complaints were filed by the respective Complainants before the Ld. District Forum, The Appeals have been preferred by the Developer/Appellant. The Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that the compensation and cost awarded by the Ld. District Forum is excessive. It is submitted that possession has been delivered peacefully and the Appellant is ready and willing to execute the Deeds of Conveyance, but due to non-cooperation of the landowners the developer could not register the deeds. The Ld. Advocate has referred to the decision reported in RP 3036 of 2013 (NC) [Lav Arunbhai Vaidya Vs. Prosenjit Sarkar & 3 others], wherein it has been held that the grouse of the owners is that they have not received the amount paid to the opposite parties 3 and 4 and a Civil Court will decide the case in accordance with law. It has further been held therein that in case of dispute between the promoters and the owners inter se, the petitioner has nothing to do with that, and II (1991) CPR 142 (NC) [Commercial Officer, Office of the Telecom, Distt. Manager, Patna Vs. Bihar State Warehousing Corporation], wherein it has been held that remedy by way of arbitration under the Telegraph Act does not preclude an aggrieved consumer from seeking redressal before the forum under Consumer Protection Act.
The Ld. Advocate for the landowners/Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 has submitted that Power of Attorney was given by the landowners to the developer. It is submitted that after getting copies of the judgments, information was sent to the Complainants about their readiness and willingness to register the deeds.
The Ld. Advocate for the Respondents/Complainants has submitted that the Ld. District Forum was justified in passing the impugned judgment and order.
We have heard the submissions of both the sides and examined the materials on record. Admittedly, possession was delivered, but the registration of the deeds has not been done. Although it is submitted at the time of hearing that the developer and the landowners are willing to execute and register the Deeds of Conveyance, it is clear that after the passing of the judgments by the Ld. District Forum, wherein 45 days time was allowed for registration of the deeds, the OPs of the Complaints have not yet registered the deeds. Having heard the submissions made by both sides and after going through the impugned judgments we are of the considered view that the Ld. District Forum considered all the aspects of the case and rightly passed the impugned judgments and orders. There is no ground to interfere with the findings of the Ld. District Forum.
There is no merit in these Appeals.
The Appeals are dismissed. The impugned judgments are affirmed. This judgment will govern all the Appeals as mentioned above.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER(TG) MEMBER(L) PRESIDENT