Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member
Larica Estates Ltd. and Anr. —Petitioners
versus
Sri Kalyan Ghosh —Respondent
Revision Petition No.909 of 2017
(Against the Order dated 15/03/2017 in Appeal No. 537/2015 of the State Commission West Bengal)
Decided on 16.3.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Prasanta Banerjee, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Surojit Banerjee, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Power under Section 21(b) of C.P. Act, 1986 can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in impugned order.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) – Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58 – Allotment of flat – Claim for delivery of possession – Scope – Complainant made part payment of Rs. 25,000 out of a total considerations of Rs. 7,06,000 for purchase of a flat where construction got delayed – District Forum directed opposite party to hand over the actual vacant possession of flat in question, on payment of balance considerations money – State Commission dismissed the appeal – Hence this petition – Reason for non-payment of balance amount within the time schedule was non-sanction of funds by the Bank for want of required papers, which were supposed to be supplied by petitioners – Under Section 21(b), Court can intervene only when petitioner succeeds in showing that Fora below has wrongly exercised its jurisdiction or there is a miscarriage of justice – No reason found to be disagree with concurrent findings of both the Fora below – Interference with impugned order declined with. (Paras 5 to 8)
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member—Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No.537/2015 dated 15.03.2017.
2. Case of the Respondent/Complainant is that he had made a payment of Rs.25,050/- out of the total consideration amount of Rs.7,06,000/- and booked a flat with the Petitioner/Opposite Party. The Petitioner did not complete the flat despite several requests made by the Respondent for completion of the same. Aggrieved by the delay in completion of the pending works, the Respondent filed a complaint case before the District Forum with following prayer: -
“A. An order for directing the opposite parties jointly or severally to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the flat of the petitioner more fully and specifically described in schedule below in favour of the petitioner, failing which the deed of conveyance may be registered through court/forum; and
B. An order for directing all the opposite parties jointly or severally to deliver the peaceful vacant physical possession of the said flat of the petitioners more fully and specifically described in schedule below in favour of the petitioner, failing which the deed of conveyance may be registered through court/forum; and
C. An order for directing all the opposite parties jointly and/or severally to bear/pay the enhanced cost of registration if and as to be determined by the Ld. Forum and
D. An order for directing all the opposite parties no. 1 to 2 jointly and/or severally to pay Rs.7,00,000/- compensation for harassment, mental agony and also for negligent act and conducting the deficiency in service; and
E. An order for directing all opposite parties jointly and/or severally to take the completion certificate with regard to said multistoried building including all facts as per sanctioned plan from the local Municipality and to hand over the same to the representative petitioner; and
F. An order for directing the all opposite parties jointly and/or severally to provide the all sorts of common facilities in respect of the suit flat and building, in favour of the petitioner; and
H. All cost of the proceeding; and
I. All other relief/reliefs as the petitioner is entitled to get in law and equity.”
3. The District Forum allowed the Complaint ex-parte against the Petitioners, imposing a cost of Rs.5,000/-. The District Forum ordered as follows: -
“That the case be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the O.P. no. 1 & 2, with the cost of Rs.5,000/- only.
That the O.P. no. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to hand over the actual vacant possession of the said three bed rooms flat in question, on payment of balance consideration money of Rs.6,81,000/- only, within a period of one month from the date of payment of balance consideration money.
That the O.P. no. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to execute and register appropriate Deed of Conveyance, in favour of the complainant in respect of the said flat within a period of one month from the date of payment of the balance consideration money.
That the O.P. no. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- only as compensation for harassment and mental agony, within one month from the date of this order.
In the event of non-compliance of any portion of the executable order by any of the O.Ps within the above specified period, the said O.Ps shall have to pay a sum of Rs.200/- per day from the date of this order till its realization, as punitive damages, which shall be deposited by the O.Ps in the State Consumer Welfare Fund.”
4. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Petitioners filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission heard both the parties and dismissed the Appeal as it was bereft of any merit to be
