NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Revision Petition No. 235 of 2007
(From the order dated 21.7.2006 in Appeal
/ Complaint No.45/A/2003 of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Kolkata)
Biswanath Aich
Petitioner
S/o Late Suresh Chandra Aich
R/o 99/77, Bapuji Colony,
P.S. Dum Dum
Kolkata – 700 028
versus
Rama Prosad Chattopadhyaya Respondent
S/o Late Krishnapada Chattopadhyaya
R/o 99/77, L.P. 144/7/2, Bapuji Colony,
P.S. Dum Dum
Kolkata – 700 028
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. C. JAIN
PRESIDING MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA MEMBER
For the Petitioner Mr.
Sanatan Roy Choudhury, Advocate
For the Respondent Mr. Sanjoy Kumar Ghosh, Advocate
This revision petition seeks
to challenge the order dated 21.7.2006 of the West Bengal State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (hereafter ‘the State Commission’) in
First Appeal No. 45/A/2003. By the said order, the State Commission affirmed
the order dated 24.9.2002 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
(hereafter ‘the District Forum’), 24 Parganas (North), Barasat in consumer
complaint no.88 of 2002 and directed the respondent (petitioner herein) to
furnish the deed of conveyance for the flat in question to the respondent
(original complainant) for registration and also hand over the completion
certificate within 60 days from the date of receipt of the State Commission’s
order. In the aforesaid consumer complaint, the District Forum had ordered as
under: -
“The case is allowed on contest in part with cost assessed at Rs.150/- (Rupees One Hundred Fifty). The opposite party is directed to immediately collect the completion certificate from the appropriate Municipal Authority and to inform the complainant of his readiness to execute the deed within 2 months from the date, in default, the opposite party shall be liable for payment of compensation at the rate of Rs.25/- (Rupees Twenty Five) per day for the period of default after the expiry of the period of 2 months. The complainant does also get from the opposite party and the latter does pay the former a compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) for the wastage of time. After the information is received by the complainant from the opposite party about the latter’s readiness to execute, the complainant shall present the deed of conveyance to be executed by the opposite party and shall fix up the date for execution and presentation of the deed for registration before the competent authority in accordance with the provision of law.”
2. The dispute in this case pertains to the sale of a flat consisting of three rooms, toilet and bathroom in the Southern portion of the first floor of the house of the petitioner to the respondent for a consideration of Rs. 3.70 lakh. This was the position as per the letter of intent to sell (‘Baina Patra’ in Bengali, hereafter referred to as ‘the letter of intent’) signed by the respondent on 13.04.1998. By this letter, the petitioner also stated to have accepted a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as part of the consideration. The remaining amount appears to have been paid in six installments: the first five of Rs.50,000/- and the last one of Rs.20,000/- during the period of 28.04.1998 - 20.07.1998. The respondent / complainant, however, received possession of the flat without completion certificate of the competent authority because the said certificate could not be obtained by the petitioner for lack of compliance with some mandatory requirements. As a result, the complainant faced various hardships, including the threat of disconnection of electric supply. The petitioner also failed to execute the deed of conveyance in favour of the respondent as agreed, despite several requests of the latter. This compelled the respondent to seek redress before the District Forum, which, on consideration of the matter, passed the order, dated 24.09.2002 already noticed above.
3. Against this order, the
petitioner approached the State Commission, which in turn affirmed the order of
the District Forum, as also noticed above.
4. In course of these
proceedings, the petitioner was directed, by our order dated 01.02.2007, to
hand over the completion certificate of the flat in question to the respondent
/ complainant within a period of four weeks from the date of the order. This
the petitioner did in due course.
5. The dispute pertains to a certain signed statement dated 10.11.1999 of the respondent/complainant in Bengali, the English translation of which is as under: -
“I,
Shri Rama Prasad Chatterjee hereby state that I have purchased 600 sq. ft.
area, three room flat from Shri Biswanath Aich. The
price of the aforesaid flat, at the rate of Rs.650/- per sq. ft., comes to Rs.3,90,000/- (Three lakh ninety thousand only) and has been
fixed at Rs.3,70,000/- and it is also stated that for the water tank, water
reservoir, drain, meter installing area and common passage, I am bound to pay
Rs.15% (fifteen percent) of the total amount in addition. I am giving this
undertaking of my own free will.”
6. The
contention of the petitioner is that the respondent / complainant has not yet
implemented the assurance contained in his above-mentioned letter and not paid
the additional sum of 15% of the total consideration of Rs.3.70 lakh to the
petitioner. As a result of which, it has not been possible for him to furnish
the duly completed conveyance deed in favour of the respondent/complainant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further claims that a copy of the original
letter (in Bengali) signed by the respondent / complainant was produced before
the District Forum and also noticed clearly in paragraph 3 of the latter’s
order to the effect ”… that the
complainant failed to perform his part of the conditions in the agreement which
was subsequently ratified by him on 10.11.1999 that he would bear 15% of the
total consideration for the service area and enjoyment of the common amenities
and facilities” and that this was also explicitly referred to in paragraph
4 of the impugned order of the State Commission in these words, viz., “However, the supporting documents were
placed before the Ld. Forum. One of such document is the written admission on
the part of the Respondent addressed to the Appellant that he is agreeable to
bear 15% extra cost on the consideration money towards common space and
services”. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent /
complainant contends that this agreement is fictitious and was never signed by the respondent / complainant.
7. Prima
facie, it would appear that there is an element of justification in the
contention of the petitioner inasmuch as the first letter of intent dated
13.04.1998 did not refer to the use of the common amenities and facilities by
the respondent / complainant which would have been necessary for use of the
flat by the respondent / complainant and this was, therefore, clarified in the
statement dated 10.11.1999, reportedly signed voluntarily by the respondent /
complainant. As mentioned above, both the District Forum and the State
Commission have taken note of the existence of this statement. However, neither
has returned a finding on the
genuineness or otherwise of its contents and of the signature thereon of the
respondent / complainant. This is an important aspect of fact of the case,
which ought to have been investigated in greater detail by the lower Fora.
8. In view of this, set aside the impugned order of the State Commission (and consequently, that of the District Forum) and remand the case back to the District Forum for further investigation into the genuineness of the contents of and signature on the aforesaid statement dated 10.11.1999. Along with determination of these issues relating to the aforesaid statement, the District Forum may adjudicate afresh the claims of the parties and pass appropriate order in accordance with the law. For this purpose, both the parties may present themselves before the District Forum on 25.11.2008.
The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.
….….……….……………………
[R. C. JAIN, J]
[PRESIDING MEMBER]
.….….….…………………………
[ANUPAM DASGUPTA]
SS/