National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Bhagyalaxmi Construction vs Sri Monoranjan Basak & Anr. on 31 May, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 668 OF 2013 (Against the order dated 11.01.2013 in S.C. Case No. FA/546/2010 of the State Commission, West Bengal) Bhagyalaxmi Construction, Represented by its Proprietor Sri Jiban Chatterjee, 52, Dum Dum Park, Lake Town, Kolkata- 700055 .Petitioner Versus 1. Sri Monoranjan Basak 274/1D, A.P.C. Road, Manicktala, Kolkata- 700006 2. a) Tapan Mukherjee b) Swapan Mukherjee both (a) & (b) sons of Late Jitendra Nath Mukherjee c) Sm. Indrani Mukherjee daughter of Late Jitendra Nath Mukherjee all of 59, Dakshin Para, P.S. Dum Dum, Kolkata- 700089 d) Sm. Sibani Banerjee, wife of Sri Kalyan Banerjee daughter of Late Jitendra Nath Mukherjee Addhyanath Saha Road, P.S. Lake town, Kolkata- 700089 ....Respondents BEFORE HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, PRESIDING MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Soumen Talukdar, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON: 31 May 2013 ORDER
PER MR.VINAY KUMAR, PRESIDING MEMBER The matter in this revision petition arose out of an agreement of 20.12.2000 between the Complainant and OP-2/Bhagyalaxmi Construction, Kolkata for purchase of a flat. Allegedly, the entire consideration was paid by the Complainant, but despite repeated requests the flat was not delivered to and registered in the name of the Complainant. The District Forum rejected the contention that the consideration was not paid. It also rejected the plea of limitation raised on behalf of the OP, holding it to be a case of continuing cause of action. Therefore, the OPs were directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the Complainant within one month and pay Rs.1000/- towards cost of litigation.
2. The decision was challenged before the West Bengal Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FA/546/2010. The State Commission has confirmed the findings of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal of M/s. Bhagyalaxmi Construction. The latter has now challenged the order of the State Commission in revision petition no.668 of 2013.
3. I have perused the records as submitted by the revision petitioner and heard its counsel Mr. Soumen Talukdar. Mr. Talukar has argued that the fora below have not considered the plea of the RP/OP that the reason for non-delivery of the possession was that the agreed consideration had not been paid by the respondent/Complainant.
Having argued, the learned counsel also admitted that he has not filed copies of the pleadings of the parties before the District Forum. Nevertheless, in the interest of justice, one opportunity was allowed permitting the revision petitioner to file copies of the complaint, written statement of the OP and list of documents produced before the District Forum on behalf of the RP/OP.
4. On the next date of hearing, the copy of the written statement of the OP before the District Forum, as produced by counsel for the revision petitioner, was perused. The contents of this written statement lend no support to the arguments advanced by Mr. Soumen Talukdar before this Commission. Thus the document does not show what was the exact amount of consideration agreed between the parties. Nor does it give any details of how much of the agreed consideration had been received and what was the balance amount remaining to be paid by the Complainant.
5. Coming to the issue of limitation, raised before the fora below on behalf of RP/OP. The State Commission has agreed with the finding of the District Forum that it was a case of continuing cause of action. The question of the complaint being barred by limitation did not arise.
From a perusal of the records and from the arguments of the counsel for the revision petitioner, I find that it is a case where existence of an agreement between the parties for purchase of a flat is not denied. Receipt of consideration for the same is also not denied. I therefore, find myself in agreement with the fora below that the cause of action had continued to exist because neither the possession was delivered nor the conveyance was executed in favour of the Complainant.
6. Therefore, the revision petition is held to be entirely devoid of any merit and is dismissed for the same reason. Consequently, the order of West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in appeal No. FA/546/2010 is confirmed. No order as to costs.
.Sd/-
(VINAY KUMAR) PRESIDING MEMBER s./-