w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Krishanu Chakraborty & Others v/s Dipankar Naskar (Director)Walden Estates Ltd.

    Complaint Case No. CC/487/2017

    Decided On, 16 January 2020

    At, West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata

    By, MEMBER

    For the Complainant: Kalyan Chakraborty, In person. For the Opp. Party: None appears.

Judgment Text

Shyamal Kumar Ghosh, Member

The complainants have filed the instant case against the op before this Commission and prayed for direction upon the op to develop the village city project as per sale deed agreement dated 30th July 2014 without any further delay, to hand over the plots as prayed for in their complaint-petition after necessary demarcation and fencing with pillar, to pay compensation etc.

The brief fact of the case is that in the year 2014 the op published an advertisement in their website and stated that they had already acquired around 100 bighas land at Nahazari Panchayat, under Bishnupur Police Station, District- South 24 Parganas. They agreed to develop the whole plots of land for the purpose of making a township project along with providing various facilities like road, water, electricity, swage, parks etc and other amenities. After getting the said information, the complainants visited the office of the said op. The discussion was made between the complainants and the op over the said matter. Thereafter, the complainants purchased the various plots by way of registered deed of conveyance at Alipore Registry office, South 24 Parganas. The agreement for sale certificate was also executed in between vendor and purchaser. In the said certificate there was a condition to develop the land within 18 months from the date this agreement. The op also promised to provide the supply of electricity, drinking water, swage, drainage system etc within 18 months from the date of this agreement. But unfortunately no development work has been done on the said plots. Thereafter, the complainants tried to contact with the op by various moods but the op did not pay heed in this matter. Having no other alternative, the complainants knocked at the door of this Commission for getting proper relief /reliefs against the ops as prayed for.

Written version was filed by the op on 16/03/2018 wherein the said op clearly stated that within the stipulated period of time the project work could not be completed due to some unforeseen complications. The op, thereafter, requested the complainant to switch over another land in another project alternatively. As per prayer of the complainants, the op is ready to re-pay the consideration amount in installments. The complainants are not entitled to get any compensation and cost and as such the instant consumer case is liable to be dismissed.

At the time of final hearing the complainants were present through their authorized representative. None appeared on behalf of the op. So the case is taken up for hearing ex-parte. Though, the op contested this case by filing written version.

We have heard the authorized representative of the complainants. We have also considered his submission and perused the materials on record carefully.

Before explaining the other issues involved in the complaint case, we have to decide at first whether the instant complaint case falls within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or not.

At first, we have perused the brochure issued by the op. Through the said brochure, the op offered for Bungalow and residential plot with various amenities such as high land, metal road, park, play ground, electricity, water and many more. The plots would be handed over to the purchasers after all development. This document also declares that the development of projects and handing over the plots in the stipulated time frame would be strictly maintained by the op concerned.

Thereafter, we have also perused the Agreement for Sale dated 14/02/2014 executed between the op and the complainants 1 & 2 wherein the complainants agreed to purchase the aforesaid landed property fenced with pillars at a total consideration amount of Rs 5,00,000/- and the op also agreed to sell the same after necessary development by providing various amenities such as electricity, arsenic-free water, drinking water, sewage, drainage system, metal roads within the stipulated period of time. We have also perused the Memo of Consideration wherein it is clear to us that the complainants already paid a sum of Rs 5,00,000/- (Rs five lakh only) to the op. The op received the same after endorsing his signature upon the said document which is clearly reflected at the last page of the said agreement.

The plots of Sali land measuring area more or less 4 cottahs (ie plot nos B-26 & B-27) were executed and registered in favour of the complainants 1 & 2 on payment of full consideration amount of Rs 4,00,000/- to the op which is clearly revealed from the Deed of Sale being no – 01956 dated 14/03/2014.

The other plots of Sali land measuring area more or less 4 cottahs (ie plot nos B-40 & B-41) were also executed and registered in favour of the complainants 2 & 3 on payment of full consideration amount of Rs 4,00,000/- to the op which is clearly revealed from the Deed of Sale being no – 01957 dated 14/03/2014.

The complainant viz. Amal Chakraborty also purchased Sali land measuring area more or less 4 cottahs (ie plot nos B-68 & B-67) by way of registered sale deed being no – 04005 dated 29/05/2014 on payment of full consideration amount of Rs 4,00,000/- to the op.

Though, it is admitted fact that the entire consideration was paid to the op and even after execution and registration of the deed of conveyance, the op did not hand over the possession of the aforementioned plots of Sali land fancied with pillar, yet, at the time of hearing, the complainants have failed to satisfy us that the said purchase was made for the need of their residential purpose or for the need of their family. Under such situation, we think that the complainants are nothing but the investors and through this investment they may earn money by selling of the aforesaid plots of land to any third party/parties. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is made for the genuine need of the complainant/complainants and not for the investors/land-brokers. So, as per our view the commercial motive/purpose is involved in the instant case and as such the instant consumer case is not at all maintainable in this Commission. In this respect we try to

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

take the reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Pramod Kumar Arora vs DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. reported in II(2016)CPJ 626 (NC), where the Hon’ble NCDRC held that booking of five plots and one villa are for commercial purpose. Complainants are investors. Their case does not come within the ambit of explanation appended to section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986. So the complaint is not maintainable. In view of the above observations and decision of the Hon’ble National Commission we dismiss the complaint case without cost and liberty is given to the complainants to approach the appropriate Forum/Court for getting their proper relief/reliefs.