State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gaurav Agarwal vs Dipankar Maji & Others on 14 February, 2019
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 Complaint Case No. CC/61/2019 ( Date of Filing : 22 Jan 2019 ) 1. Gaurav Agarwal S/o Shraban Kr. Agarwal, presently at 34/37, Nara Singha Dutta Road, Block -B, 3rd Floor, Howrah, rep. by constituted attorney, Uma Shankar Agarwal. ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. Dipankar Maji & Others S/o Nilanjan Maji, 12, Panchanan Chatterjee Lane, P.S. - Bantra, Dist. Howrah - 711 101. 2. Chabbi Rani Ghosh W/o Lt. Indrajit Ghosh, 2/3, Kedar Nath Mukherjee Lane, P.S. - Bantra, Dist. Howrah - 711 101. 3. Indranil Ghosh S/o Lt. Indrajit Ghosh, 2/3, Kedar Nath Mukherjee Lane, P.S. - Bantra, Dist. Howrah - 711 101. ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER For the Complainant: Mr. Samrat Mukherjee, Advocate For the Opp. Party: Dated : 14 Feb 2019 Final Order / Judgement Order No. 2 date: 14-02-2019 Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
This day is fixed for passing order in respect of the admissibility of the case.
The complaint case is essentially filed alleging non-delivery of the schedule flat by the OPs to the Complainant.
In short, case of the Complainant is that, on 24-11-2009, he entered into an agreement with the OP Nos. 1 to 3 for the purpose of purchasing the schedule flat. In terms of the agreement, the OPs were bound to deliver absolute possession of the flat in full and furnished condition to the Complainant within 5 months of receipt of full and final payment of the entire amount to the confirming party and to the Landlord. As the OPs failed to deliver possession of the flat in question, the Complainant repeatedly followed up the matter with them, but in vain. Through a letter dated 27-06-2012, the OPs though tried to justify the inordinate delay, it was not acceptable to the Complainant. Therefore, he filed the complaint case.
Heard the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant on the aspect of admissibility of the complaint case and gone through the material on record.
It appears that the Complainant initially knocked the door of Ld. District Forum, Howrah which, however, was dismissed on limitation ground. Against this, the Complainant moved an Appeal bearing no. A/429/2016. However, vide Order dated 24-12-2018, this Commission dismissed the said Appeal taking due note of the fact that the value of schedule flat together with compensation claimed exceeded pecuniary jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum. However, due liberty was accorded to the Complainant to file the complaint case afresh before the appropriate Forum. Accordingly, this complaint case is filed before us.
On scrutiny of the material on record, it transpires that the cause of action arose in the year 2009, when the Complainant entered into an agreement with the OPs and paid the consideration amount. As noted hereinabove, the schedule flat was supposed to be delivered within five months of payment of full consideration money to the confirming party of the said agreement and the Landlord. Against such backdrop, while the complaint case could be moved latest by the year 2011, the same was filed in the year 2014, that too without advancing any satisfactory explanation to justify the belated filing of the same. By dismissing the complaint case, accordingly, the Ld. District Forum committed no legal infirmity.
In this regard, we have taken due note of the fact that in reply to Complainant's letter dated 21-06-2012, the OPs wrote a letter to him on 27-06-2012. However, as we know, mere exchange of correspondence does not linger the cause of action any further. Therefore, the reply given by the OPs vide letter dated 27-06-2012 cannot have any positive bearing to justify delayed filing of the complaint case.
Further, we have also noted that while the value of the subject flat was only Rs. 6,00,000/-, the Complainant claimed a whooping sum of Rs. 17,00,000/- as compensation. Not to mention, the Complainant further demanded refund of the sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- being paid by him to the OPs; another sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of his harassment and mental agony; and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation cost.
We are afraid but a rational/logical look into the dispute makes no bones of the fact that the total amount of claim is highly disproportionate/exaggerated vis-à-vis actual loss/sufferings of the Complainant. For this reason also, the present complaint case is not maintainable.
The complaint case is not admissible as such. Consequent thereof, the complaint case stands dismissed being not maintainable. [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER