IMPORTANT POINT
Enforcement of a conveyance deed - Enforcement of a conveyance deed is not within the jurisdiction of National Commission.

ORDER

Subhash Chandra—This revision petition under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails order dated 02.11.2018 of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, West Bengal, Kolkata (in short, ‘State Commission’) in Appeal No. A/344/2017 of 2017 filed against order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata Unit III (in short, ‘District Forum’) in consumer complaint no. 212 of 2016 dated 22.02.2017.

2. A cross revision petition no.3317 of 2018 has also been filed by Alka Devi Bhawalka against the same order of the State Commission, Kolkata. This order will also dispose of this revision petition as it emanates from the same impugned order.

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent no.1 had filed consumer complaint no. CC 212 of 2016 before the District Forum claiming that respondent no.2 had sold a car parking space measuring approximately 120 sq ft on the ground floor of the building Lokenath View, 100 Banamali Naskar Road, Kolkata for a consideration of Rs.3,25,000/- as per a sale deed dated 16.01.2015 registered with the ADSR, Behala. It is admitted by respondent no 1 that this document mentions the sale consideration as Rs.2,00,000/- only. Respondent no 1 submits that respondent no 2 had assured him that the said car parking would be enclosed by a brick wall duly plastered with a shutter gate in the front. However, this property was not handed over and the construction as promised was not done by respondent no 2 despite several efforts by respondent no 1, including a legal notice dated 25.08.2015. Thereafter, respondent no 1 approached the District Forum praying for direction to respondent no 2 to complete the construction and to deliver vacant possession to him along with compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the inordinate delay. This complaint was contested by respondent 2. Petitioners 1 and 2 herein also contested the complaint on the ground that the space stated to have been sold was earmarked as common parking space as per the building plan sanctioned by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) and could not be sold or enclosed as claimed.

4. The District Forum dismissed the complaint and ordered as under:

On perusal of the prayer portion, it appears that the first prayer of the Complainant is a direction upon the OP No to complete the construction of the said car parking space by erecting brick built walls on its three sides together with fitting a shutter gate. Further, on perusal of the registered deed, it appears that registration was made of a car parking space which is mentioned in the schedule B of the copy of the deed which makes it clear that one cemented floor covered car parking space having an area of 120 sq.ft. in the premises No.100 was sold that means Complainant purchased a covered car parking space and hence there does not arise any action. Subsequently, that Complainant will rebut the facts mentioned in the conveyance deed which was made before the Sub-Registrar and the deed was registered.

This is settled principle that the contents of the deed can be challenged before a Civil Court and not before this Forum.

Accordingly, the first prayer cannot be allowed.

The second prayer of the Complainant is for delivery of vacant possession of the said car parking space. This prayer also appears to be inconsistent as because when the deed of conveyance was made, the handing over of the possession of the car parking space was also made. It cannot be presumed that Complainant made payment without getting possession of the car parking space.

As such, we are of the view that this prayer of the Complainant cannot be allowed.

Finally, Complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs 5,00,000/-.

On perusal of the affidavit-in-chief, questionnaire and reply of the respective parties, it appears that there is no ground that compensation can be allowed. It is because the latches are on the part of the Complainant who purchased car parking spac