Sonali Roy vs Uttam Shaw

HEARD .

EARLIER , present Complainants had filed, Complaint Case No.376 of 2014, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (for short, "State Commission") against present Respondent/Opposite Party, seeking following reliefs; " (iii) After hearing the parties, the order may kindly be passed directing the Opposite Party to make payment of Rs.58,91,924/ -(Rupees fifty eight lakh ninety one thousand nine hundred twenty four only) along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date that is, 05.07.2013 when the Opposite Party got Completion Certificate;

(iv) To pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/ -(Rupees five lakh only) for harassment, mental agony and financial loss;

(v) To pay cost of Rs.50,000/ -(Rupees fifty thousand only) .."

THE State Commission after hearing the complainants on the point of admission, passed the following order on 16.12.2014; " This order relates to hearing on the point of admission.

The case of the Complainants, in short, is that Anshuman Roy, the predecessor -in -interest of the Complainants sold his vacant land measuring 10 cottachs 14 chittaks situated at 12C and 12D/2, B.T. Road, Kolkata -70002 in favour of the OP at a price of Rs.80 lakh. Simultaneously on the same date, that is, 14.08.2009 a MoU was prepared between the OP and the predecessor -in -interest of the Complainants where the OP promised to give two flats. But the OP in an unfair way changed the MoU wherein only one flat was mentioned instead of two. The completion certificate was obtained by the OP on 05.07.2013, but he did not give any reply to the letter dated 29.01.2014 issued by the Complainant. The Complainants have prayed for compensation of Rs. 58,91,924 with interest @ 12% p.a. from 05.07.2013, a sum of Rs.5 lakh for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/ -.

The total valuation of the land and the amount of compensation and costs, therefore, exceeds Rs.1cr. and thus this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The complaint is not maintainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction and the same stands dismissed with liberty to file the same before the appropriate Forum ."

Now complainants have filed the present complaint, i.e, (Consumer Complaint No.422 of 2015) before this Commission, claiming same reliefs which were claimed in the earlier complaint, i.e, Complaint Case No. 376 of 2014.

LEARNED counsel for complainants after arguing for some time, states that as relief sought by the complainants in the present complaint is less than Rs.1cr, he under instructions, states that complainants do not press the present complaint and want to withdraw the same with liberty to challenge order dated 16.12.2014 passed by State Commission in Complaint Case No. 376 of 2014.

IN view of the above statement made by learned counsel for the complainants, the present complaint stands dismissed as withdrawn. However, liberty is granted to the complainants to challenge order dated 16.12.2014, passed by the State Commission in (Complaint Case No.376 of 2014), in accordance with provisions of law. It is hereby clarified also, that the period of limitation, will not come in the way of the complainants, provided complainants challenge order dated 16.12.2014 of the State Commission, within one month from today.

WITH these observations, present complaint stand disposed of.

DASTI .