State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri Ram Chandra Shaw, Sole Proprietor ... vs Sri Mukul Roy Chowdhury on 17 January, 2018
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/1306/2015 (Arisen out of Order Dated 13/11/2014 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/327/2014 of District South 24 Parganas) 1. Sri Ram Chandra Shaw, Sole Proprietor M/s. Sarada Construction 110, Raipur Road, P.S - Jadavpur, Kolkata - 700 084. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Sri Mukul Roy Chowdhury S/o, Lt. Shrish Chandra Chowdhury, Sonarpur Bazar, Gorkhara, Hemlata Apartment, P.O & P.S - Sonarpur, Kolkata - 700 150, Dist - South 24 Pgs. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ISHAN CHANDRA DAS PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Gouranga Gupta Roy , Ms Mousumi Chakraborty, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Nil Ratan Ray, Advocate Dated : 17 Jan 2018 Final Order / Judgement
HON'BLE JUSTICE ISHAN CHANDRA DAS, PRESIDENT This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 17-07-2015 passed by Ld. DCDRF, 24-Parganas (South) in CC/499/2014 where Ld. Forum concerned while disposing of the complaint case allowed the same in part exparte with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) and directed the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh) as value of the property in question and to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) towards compensation to the complainant within one month from the date of the order with default clause.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order, the appeal has been preferred by the OP of the CC/499/2014.
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant i.e. the respondent herein (and hereinafter referred to as the complainant) was that the complainant and others were the owners of a land measuring 6 sataks, described in para 2 of the petition of complaint. There was an agreement between the complainant and the OP/appellant herein (and hereinafter referred to as the OP) for development of the said 6 sataks of land and as per said agreement for development dated 25-11-2008, the OP would construct the building and after construction he would hand over one flat and one ground floor room to each owner including the complainant in the said premises. As per agreement dated 25-11-2008, the OP/Developer handed over the flat to each of the owners including the complainant on 22-10-2013 but did not hand over the ground floor room measuring 70 sq. ft. each. The complainant and his other co-owners on several occasions requested the Developer/OP to hand over said ground floor room, as per terms of agreement dated 25-11-2008. On 22-10-2013, the OP/Developer came to the complainant with a proposal that he would pay Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh) to him instead of handing over the 70 sq. ft. room in the ground floor, as he intended to sell out those rooms to the intending purchasers for a consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh) or more.
As the complainant and other co-owners did not agreed with such proposal, the OP/Developer expressed that he would not hand over the said ground floor room in the schedule premises nor he would pay for the same which left no alternative before the complainant and his other co-owners but to take recourse of the Ld. DCDRF claiming directions and other consequential reliefs as per the petition of complaint.
The complainant in his declaration dated 22-10-2013 (page 33A of the file) admitted that he took up possession of a flat measuring 696 sq. ft. in the building, to his satisfaction. Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant/Developer in course of hearing drew our attention to the unregistered agreement between the developer and the complainant (at page 34) and on perusal of the same it is clearly established that the complainant expressed his desire to give up his right in respect of the 70 sq. ft. ground floor room in favour of the developer for a consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakh) out of which Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh) was paid to him instantly and the balance was to be paid before the date on which the terms of agreement would be over. Such a situation leads us to come to the conclusion that the complaint gave up his right to possession of the 70 sq. ft. ground floor room. Since no document is produced before us with regard to payment of balance consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh), the complainant/respondent herein would get such a decree of recovery of balance consideration in the instant complaint case and nothing more. Hence, we allow the appeal in part and direct the appellant/Developer to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) to the complaint/respondent within two months (60 days) from the date of the order. In default, of such payment the appellant shall be liable to pay simple interest @ 10% per annum from the date of payment of 1st installment of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) till the date of realization. Parties do bear their respective costs of appeal. [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ISHAN CHANDRA DAS] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY] MEMBER