National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Pradip Ranjan Mullick & Anr. vs Ratan Guria on 5 May, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1035 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 29/01/2015 in Appeal No. 1030/2013 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. PRADIP RANJAN MULLICK & ANR. S/O LATE PARESH NATH MULLICK, 144 NARASINGH DUTTA ROAD, POST OFFICE-KADAMTALA, POLICE STATION-BANDTRA, DISTRICT: HOWRAH W.B - 711101 2. SRI SUBRATA PACHAL, S/O LATE GOPINATH PACHAL,. KASHIPUR, C.T.I.DASNAGAR, DISTRICT: HOWRAH - 711105 W.B ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RATAN GURIA S/O LATE BANKIM GURIA,. 144 NARASINGH DUTTA ROAD, POST OFFICE-KADAMTALA, POLICE STATION-BANDTRA, DISTRICT: HOWRAH W.B -711101 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr.Anirban Ghosh, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 05 May 2015 ORDER JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
1. Counsel for the petitioner heard. Shri Ratan Guria, the complainant, booked a flat measuring 566 sq.ft. for a total consideration of Rs. 5,37,000/- as per agreement. The Sale Deed dated 26.05.2003 was also executed. However, thereafter the area of the flat was enhanced to 626 sq.ft. with resultant increase of Rs.5,94,000/-. The complainant paid an amount in the sum of Rs.5,50,000/-. The complainant was still to pay a sum of Rs. 44,000/-.
2. Both the fora decided the case against the OP-builder and directed him to execute and register the sale deed of the flat in question in favour of the complainant.
3. It is submitted that a new Act has come into force wherein, u/s. 12 A of the West Bengal Building (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993, the Hon'ble High Court has ordered in the case titled as "Krishna Abason Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Krishna Sarkar & Anr." [2015 (1) CLJ (Cal)] that complaint with regard to developer and purchaser is not maintainable before the Consumer Disputes Forum being a civil court. Another authority in this respect was cited before the State Commission reported in "Bithi Das Vs. Debarata Najumdar, [2014 (1) CHN (CAL) 50]. According to these authorities the Consumer Court cannot arrogate to itself the powers enjoyed by the Civil Court.
4. However, the State Commission has mentioned the opposite view, which goes to show that the Consumer Court has got the jurisdiction. These are cases tiled as "Mr. France B. Martins & Anr. Vs. M/s Mafalda Maria Teresa Rodrigues", reported in 1999 (3) CPR 67 (SC) and the order passed by this Commission in case "Basudeb Banerjee Vs. Amlan Bhattacharyya & Ors." in RP/2540/2004 and 2541/2004 decided on 07.10.2005 and in the case of "NCDRC Bar Association (Regd.) Vs. Davinder Malhotra and Ors." reported in 2008 CTJ 954 (NC).
5. In the light of the above, there is no merit in the Revision Petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
......................J J.M. MALIK PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER