Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member and Anup K Thakur, Member
Dipak Das and Anr. —Petitioners
versus
Bengal Shristi Infrastructure
Development Ltd. and Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.57 of 2018
(Against the Order dated 13/10/2017 in Appeal No. 738/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal)
Decided on 1.2.2018
Held: From the brochure it is clear that the respondents were offering a developed plot at Ahiri and he had been allotted a developed plot. The State Commission has correctly relied on the judgment of Ganeshlal vs. Shyam decided on 26th September 2016 and observed as under:
“5. Learned counsel submits that a sale of plot of land simpliciter cannot lead to a complaint to the District Consumer Forum or to the State or National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum under Section 11 of the Act is to entertain a complaint and as seen above, complaint is defined in a particular manner, and primarily it is with respect to the deficiency in making available the goods and services. The term “deficiency” is also defined under Section 2(1)(g) of the Act which reads as follows:
“deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.”
6. It is submitted that failure to hand over possession of the plot of land simpliciter cannot come within the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum, State Commission or National Commission. We quite see merit in this submission of Mr. Lambat, particularly having seen the definition of ‘deficiency’ as quoted above. We may, however, note that when it comes to “housing construction”, the same has been specifically covered under the definition of ‘service’ by an amendment inserted by Act 50 of 1993 with effect from 18th June, 1993. That being the position, as far as the housing construction by sale of flats by builders or societies is concerned, that would be on a different footing. On the other hand, where a sale of plot of land simpliciter is concerned, and if there is any complaint, the same would not be covered under the said Act.
7. Having noted this submission of Mr. Lambat, we must, however, record that he has fairly pointed out that subsequent to the order of the State Commission, the appellant has executed the sale deed, and the concerned plot of land has been handed over to the respondent. That being so, although we accept the legal submission made on behalf of the appellant, he cannot be granted any relief, namely to dismiss the complaint which was filed in the District Consumer Forum which has now been entertained and acted upon by the conduct of the appellant himself. The appeal is therefore disposed of with these observations”.
In view of the above discussion, we find that no jurisdictional or legal error or misrepresentation of facts have been shown to us which calls for interference in the exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of Act. The order of the State Commission does not call for any interference nor does it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity. Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (Paras 11 and 12)
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member—The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 13th October 2017 of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. FA/738/2014.
2. The facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the respondent/ appellant/ opposite party being an infrastructure development concern intending to develop the integrated township under the name and style “Shristinagar” at Asansol, started to offer developed plots, plots with bungalows etc. to the intending purchasers. Petitioner no. 1 by an application form no. 569 applied for a plot measuring 2.05 kathas more or less at “Shristinagar”. On receipt of the said application, the respondent therein provisionally allotted plot no. 49 to the petitioner no. 1 for a consideration of Rs.1,98,750/-. The petitioner no. 1 paid Rs.39,750/- towards ‘Application Money’ at the time of application and the respondent informed the petitioner that the rest of the consideration should be paid towards full and final payment within 30 days from the date of the letter dated 27.06.2005. On receipt of the allotment letter dated 27.06.2005 the petitioner no. 1 informed the appellant that he was not ready to pay the balance consideration without having physical verification of the plot. The respondent on receipt of the said letter (dated 02.07.2005) did not make any arrangement for the physical inspection of plot no. 49 rather they informed the petitioners by a letter dated 14.01.2006 that the petitioners would be liable to pay the balance consideration, amounting Rs.1,59,000 with interest @ 18% per annum as per the agreement to be calculated from the due date (26.07.2005) till the date of actual payment. The respondent herein further informed the petitioners by letter dated 14.01.2006 that the provisional allotment would be cancelled if the petitioners failed to pay the balance consideration with accrued interest within 10 days from such date as per clause 7 of the terms of agreement for allotment of the plots. The petitioner in reply to the letter dated 14.01.2006 informed the respondents by a letter dated 02.02.2016 the reasons for non-payment of the balance amount as noted earlier and again requested the respondents to give instruction to his site office to show the plot no. 49 with boundary and to supply a copy of NOC obtained from the Directorate of Mines Safety for construction of residential houses on the proposed site but with no result. The petitioner no. 1 expressed his desire to incorporate the name of Mr Dulal Das, the petitioner no. 2 herein, as joint petitioner for obtaining a bank loan and his request was approved.
3. Subsequently on 12.04.2006, the respondents informed the petitioners that the provisional allotment would be cancelled if the petitioners would not pay the balance consideration of Rs.1,59,000/- along with interest @ 15% per annum to be calculated from the due date till the date of realization, to be paid within 10 days from such date and on receipt of such notice the petitioner no. 1 personally rushed to the office of the respondent, expressed his desire to pay the balance consideration on making inspection of the plot no. 49, allotted to him. Similar request was made by the petitioner no. 1 in reply to the letter dated 09.04.2007 issued to the petitioner no. 1. The respondents by a letter dated 08.07.2008 informed the petitioners that during demarcation of plot no. 49, it was found that the actual area of the plot has been increased from 2.5 kathas to 2.64 kathas for which the consideration was increased to Rs.2,09,880/- and the petitioners were asked to make payment of Rs.1,70,130/- which was agreed upon by the petitioners but subject to proper identification of plot no. 49 and its area to which the petitioners were again informed that the dispute regarding identification of the plot no. 49 has not been resolved to which the petitioiner requested th
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
