National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Green Peak Realty vs Pinku Mukhopadhay & 2 Ors. on 15 February, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3720 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 22/09/2017 in Appeal No. 828/2015 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. GREEN PEAK REALTY REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. SUMANT KERKETTA S/O. SHRI SUREN KERKETTA, R/O. MAY FAIR TARUN APARTMENT 4TH FLOOR, 9/5, FEEDER ROAD, P.S. TITAGARH, P.O. BARRACKPORE, KOLKATA-700123 DISTRICT-24 PARGANAS NORTH WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. PINKU MUKHOPADHAY & 2 ORS. S/O. SRI SIDHESWAR MUKHOPADHYAY, SNEHALATA APARTMENT, FLAT NO. 201, 2ND FLOOR, 3, MAJUMDERMATH, P.O. +P.S. BARRACKPORE, KOLKATA-700120, DISTRICT NORTH 24 PARGANAS WEST BENGAL 2. SMT. KALPANA KAR W/O. SRI PRADIP KAR, R/O. FLAT NO. 102, 1ST FLOOR, SNEHALATA APARTMENT, 3, SIDDHESWARI TALA ROAD, MONIRAMPUR, MAJUMDARMATH, P.O. & P.S. BARRACKPORE, KOLKATA-700120, DISTRICT- NORTH 24 PARGANAS WEST BENGAL 3. SMT. SESHA KAR, W/O. LT. TARADAS KAR, R/O. FLAT NO. 202, 2ND FLOOR, SNEHALATA APARTMENT, 3, SIDDHESWARI TALA ROAD, MONIRAMPUR, MAJUMDARMATH, P.O. & P.S. BARRACKPORE,KOLKATA-700120, NORTH 24 PARGANAS WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN,PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Dibyendu Sengupta, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 15 Feb 2018 ORDER
1. These three Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by a Real Estate Developer, namely Green Peak Realty, Opposite Party No.3 in the Complaints under the Act, are directed against separate orders, all dated 22.09.2017, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Kolkata (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeals No.A/827/2015, A/828/2015 and A/830/2015 respectively. By the impugned orders, while affirming the finding returned by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas at Barasat (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Cases No. 530/2013, 528/2013 and 494/2013 to the effect that there were deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner in not executing the conveyance deed in respect of the flats allotted to Respondents No.1 herein, the State Commission has partly allowed the Appeals, preferred by the Petitioner to the extent that the compensation, costs of litigation and punitive damages, awarded by the District Forum in favour of the Complainants, have been set aside.
2. Hence, the present Revision Petitions.
3. The short ground on which the legality and correctness of the impugned orders is questioned by the Petitioner is that since the agreement for development of the land, owned by Respondents No. 2 and 3 herein, had been signed by the said Respondents also, the direction by the State Commission only to the Petitioner to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the Complainants is vitiated. It is argued by the Learned Counsel that although the District Forum had directed the Petitioner as well as Respondents No. 2 and 3 to execute the said documents, the State Commission has varied the said direction to the detriment of the Petitioner.
4. Having carefully perused the deed of agreement for sale, we find that under the agreement it was only the Petitioner, who was obliged to convey the flats, purchased by the Complainants, to them, on receipt of full amount towards sale consideration. No such obligation was cast on the land owners. It may be of some interest that though the District Forum had also directed the land owners to execute the conveyance deed but they chose not to challenge the said orders. Pertinently, they had filed a Complaint against the Petitioner and its local representative, being Complaint Case No. 142 of 2014, praying for completion of the project, handing over of the Completion Certificate in respect of the entire project; and registration of conveyance deed in respect of the two flats falling in their share, as per the agreement dated 20.01.2010. In other words, Respondents No. 2 and 3 were also alleging the same deficiency in rendering of service by the Petitioner, as was alleged by the Complainants in these Revision Petitions.
5. In that view of the matter, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the afore-noted direction by the State Commission, warranting interference in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction.
6. At this stage, we may also note that in Revision Petition No. 3720 of 2017, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has urged that since the Complainant therein had purchased a shop along with the flat, which had been acquired by him for commercial purpose, a Complaint filed by him under Section 12 of the Act was not maintainable. Having perused the Written Version filed on behalf of the Petitioner in opposition to the Complaint in the said case, we find that no such plea was raised by the Petitioner in its Written Version.
7. Consequently, all the Revision Petitions fail and are dismissed accordingly.
......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER