State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Gourab Chandra Das vs Mr. Partha Bhattacharjee on 29 May, 2009
D R A F T State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO. : FA/09/16 DATE OF FILING : 14.01.2009 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 29.05.2009 APPELLANT Mr. Gourab Chandra Das S/o Late Bhabesh Chandra Das Indrapuri Apartment of Mokdumpur Bandh Road P.S. English Bazar, Dist. Maldah. RESPONDENT Sri Partha Bhattacharjee S/o Late Paritosh Bhattacharjee Mokdumpur Thakurbari Lane P.O. Mokdumpur, P.S. English Bazar, Dist. Maldah, Pin-732 103. BEFORE : MEMBER : MR P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY MEMBER : MR. S.COARI FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Mr. P.Banerjee, Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S.: Mr. B.Prasad, Ld. Advocate : O R D E R :
MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER The present Appeal has been directed against the judgement and order dt. 15.12.08 passed by the Ld. Malda District Consumer Forum in Malda D.F. Original Case No. 01/2008 wherein the Ld. District Forum disposed of the case with a direction to return the petition of complaint to the complainant for its presentation before the appropriate forum.
The case of the Complainant/Appellant before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the complainant is a professional Deed Writer engaged in work of deed writing at Malda Sadar Registration Office. The petitioner and the OP are well acquainted and in terms of such well acquaintance the OP took a loan from the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 3,57,000/- from time to time since 3.3.2000 and as the OP was unable to repay the loan amount, the OP proposed to the petitioner for sale of his flat at a rate of Rs. 600/- per sq. ft. with a condition to adjust the loan amount with the principal consideration amount of the flat. The petitioner accepted the said proposal verbally and took possession of the flat by paying Rs. 9,67,000/- on different dates by bearer cheques.
After taking possession the petitioner invested the said amount towards the flat in question. The OP intentionally withheld the finishing work of the flat in question and has not executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner in spite of repeated requests and payments and hence, the petition of complaint.
The OP contested the case by filing written version thereby denying all the material averments of the petition of complaint contending inter alia that the case has been filed on false and fictitious grounds. The petitioner being a professional deed writer is competent in manufacturing false and fabricated deeds and taking advantage of his competency in such malpractice has manufactured a false and fabricated document on ten-rupee denomination stamp paper showing payment of more than Rs. 3,00,000/-. The controversy and disputes raised in the petition of complaint tantamounts to a dispute of civil nature which can only be adjudicated by a proper civil forum and under these grounds the petition of complaint will be liable to be dismissed with cost.
The Ld. District Forum while disposing of the case has observed that the disputes and controversy between the parties are of disputes of civil nature and the same can only be adjudicated through a lengthy process involving intricate points of law and that Consumer Protection Court is not the proper forum for adjudication of the dispute of similar nature and accordingly disposed of the case in the manner discussed above.
The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified enough in disposing of the case in the manner as discussed above.
DECISION WITH REASONS At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Appellant that from the case that has been put up at the instance of the complainant/Appellant it is quite simple and clear to the effect that the petitioner did purchase the flat in question from the OP for a valuable consideration. Prior to purchasing the said flat the OP took loan to the tune of more than Rs. 3,00,000/- from the complaint and being unable to repay the loan it is the OP who approached for the subsequent transactions namely selling out of his flat in favour of the petitioner for which he has accepted further amount towards consideration money. According to the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, unfortunately the Ld. District Forum did not appreciate the actual state of affairs and the disputes involved between the parties and as such, has arrived at an unjust and improper decision. According to the Ld. Advocate, there was no point in categorizing the dispute to be of civil nature.
While it is an admitted position that the complainant did purchase the flat in question from the OP for valuable consideration, there was no point on the part of the Ld. District Forum to deny the relief to the Appellant by directing the OP to register the sale deed in favour of the Appellant/Complainant. Unfortunately, the Ld. District Forum failed to appreciate the actual controversy between the parties and as such, has arrived at an improper decision which is liable to be set aside.
We have duly considered the submissions put forward on behalf of the Appellant and have gone through the materials on record including the pleadings of the parties and the documents filed including the impugned judgement and find that the entire transaction consists of two parts, the first part being taking of loan by the OP from the complainant from time to time amounting to Rs. 3,57,000/- and the second part is the petitioners claim to have purchased the flat of the OP for a valuable consideration with the condition that the loan amount would be adjusted with the consideration money. Thus, from the admitted position at the instance of the Appellant it appears the dispute is not a simple dispute of purchasing the flat by the complaint from the OP. When the OP has unequivocally challenged the authenticity of the loan document having alleged professional competency of the complainant in the capacity of a deed writer together with reliance of the complainant/Appellant for a number of false documents showing payment, we think that the Ld. District Forum was justified in treating the entire transaction between the parties to be a dispute of civil nature and nothing else.
We are also of the same opinion as that of the Ld. District Forum that the dispute cannot be adjudicated by the Forum under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act as intricate legal propositions are involved and as such, it was just and proper on the part of the Ld. District Forum to return the petition of complaint to the complainant/Appellant for its presentation before the appropriate forum. Considering the present matter in the light of above observation we find no merit in the present Appeal and we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of the Ld. District Forum which stands confirmed.
In the result, the Appeal fails.
Hence, it is ORDERED that the Appeal stands dismissed on contest without any order as to cost.
The impugned judgement of the Ld. Forum below stands affirmed.
MEMBER MEMBER