Tania Bose vs Uday Shankar Ghoshal

The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Appeal No. 305/2007 dated 18.03.2008.

In the Complaint Case, it was stated by the Petitioners/Complainants that in order to purchase the flat, Complainants entered into an agreement with the Respondent/Opposite Party on 06.05.2002. The Petitioners had paid a total of Rs.2,50,000/- to the Respondent but no receipt was given to the Petitioners. However, a new agreement was signed between the parties in July, 2002 in the name of Petitioners (Tania Bose and her Father) and the Respondent i.e. Sri Uday Shankar Ghoshal. The Petitioners stated in the Complaint that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was not paid to the Respondent. The Petitioners intentionally did not pay the said amount due to non-delivery of possession of the Flat and also for non-completion of many works as per schedule/ promise. A Complaint was, thus, filed by the Petitioners alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Respondent.

District Forum, vide order dated 31.07.2007, allowed the Complaint in part and directed Respondent to pay Rs.10,000-/- towards compensation for harassment within 30 days from the date of passing the judgement, failing which the Petitioners would be at liberty to seek execution.

Being dissatisfied with the above judgement, the Petitioners preferred Appeal No. 305/A/2007 before the State Commission contending that the Forum failed to consider that the Respondent had committed gross deficiency in service in not preforming his commitment as per the agreement, failed to deliver the flat, execute the Deed of Conveyance within due time and also failed to complete the unfinished work as per the Agreement. The Respondent was, therefore, liable to pay compensation as claimed by them. The Petitioners sought a compensation of Rs.3,48,277/- but the Forum below allowed Rs.10,000/-. Appeal was preferred for an enhanced amount of Rs.7,17,369.84/- as compensation. On the other hand, the Respondent preferred another Appeal No. 313/A/2007 before the State Commission contending that the Petitioners failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent. As the Petitioners were never harassed by them, they were not entitled to get any compensation. The Counsel for Respondent submitted that the Petitioners received physical possession of the flat prior to 12.05.2003 i.e. before filing of the complaint before the Forum. The Forum failed to understand that the Grihaprobesh Puja was performed by the Petitioners on 12.05.2003, which proves that the Petitioners had already received the physical possession without paying the full consideration amount to the Developer/Respondent. It has been further submitted by the Respondent that the registered Sale Deed could not be executed due to non-payment of the entire amount.

State Commission, vide order dated 18.03.2008, set aside the order passed by the District Forum. Aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the Petitioners filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission.

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners as well as the Respondent. They reiterated their respective contentions as stated above. We have also carefully gone through the evidence placed on record.

The prayer of the Complainant was to handover the Flat and to take legal steps for the registration of the deed of conveyance which has already been done. From a perusal of the record it is seen that the complainant got possession of the plot and the deed of conveyance was also executed and registered. It is an admitted fact that Grihaprobesh Puja was done by the complainants on 12.05.2003, i.e., before filing of the complaint and also that the Complainant received the physical possession of the flat without paying full consideration amount to the Opposite party. The Complainants also claimed Rs.3,48,277/- towards compensation in connection with loss and damages sustained by them. The Complainants, however, failed to adduce any cogent or corroborative evidence in support of their contention. Complainants could not file any evidence proving deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. We therefore are unable to agree with the claim for compensation of Rs.3,48,277/-. Though the District Forum held that the Complainant could not submit any cogent evidence in support of the compensation, it had awarded Rs.10,000/- towards the same, which does not appear to be logical. We, therefore, hold that the Complainants are not entitled for any compensation as awarded by the District Forum and rightly rejected by the State Commission. Order of the District Forum awarding the compensation is set aside and order of the State Commission is upheld. The Revision Petition stands dismissed.