RANU SAHA & ORS. vs PRASANTA DAS & ANR.

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 19.10.2012 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, ''the State Commission'') in S.C. Case No. FA/354/2011 - Smt. Ranu Saha & Ors. Vs. Sri Prasanta Das & Anr. by which, appeal was dismissed.

Brief facts of the case are that there was an agreement dated 26.4.2001 amongst OP No. 1, 2 & 3/Petitioner & Respondent No. 2 for constructing a multi-storied building. The OP No. 1 being the promoter wanted to sell various flats from the developer''s allocation in accordance with the terms and conditions mentioned in the deed of agreement dated 26.4.2001. The complainant/Respondent No. 1 approached the OP No. 1 to purchase a flat measuring about 670 sq. ft. at the ground floor of the said multi-storied building with a total cost of Rs. 4,25,000/-. Accordingly, an advance money of Rs.20,000/- was paid by the complainant to the OP No. 1 in cash on 25.3.2003. The OP No. 1 duly received a total amount of Rs.3,85,000/- from the complainant. The complainant was ready to pay the remaining balance of Rs.40,000/- to the OPs on the date of registration, but the OPs did not execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP No. 1 admitted para 1 to 5 of the complaint, but submitted that OP agreed to sell garage space measuring 670 sq. ft. on the ground floor for a sum of Rs.4,25,000/- and complainant has paid only Rs.3,85,000/- and Rs.40,000/- are still outstanding and prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 2 & 3 did not appear before District Forum. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OPs to execute sale deed on receipt of balance amount of consideration of Rs.40,000/- and further directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-. Appeal filed by OP No. 2 & 3 was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

None appeared for Respondent No. 2 even after service of notice.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in pursuance to the directions, sale deed has already been executed and learned District Forum committed error in allowing compensation more than demanded and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be modified. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 submitted that order passed by learned State commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

Perusal of District Forum order reveals that OP were directed to execute deed of conveyance on receipt of balance amount of Rs. 40,000/- and were further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation and this order was upheld by learned State Commission vide impugned order.

As far execution of conveyance deed is concerned, it has already been executed in favour of the complainant by OP. Earlier cheque of Rs.40,000/- given by complainant was stopped by him from encashment, but later on it appears that balance Rs.40,000/- has been paid by complainant to OP. Perusal of complaint reveals that complainant claimed Rs.20,000/- as compensation, but learned District forum allowed Rs.50,000/- which could not have been allowed, as relief cannot be granted more than claimed. Learned State Commission also committed error in upholding grant of compensation whereas learned State Commission should have allowed appeal to this extent and should have reduced compensation to Rs.20,000/-.

In the light of aforesaid discussion, impugned order is liable to be modified and compensation of Rs.50,000/- is to be reduced to Rs.20,000/-, as prayed in the complaint.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner paid Rs.60,000/- in execution proceedings, petitioner is free to take appropriate steps for recovery of amount paid in excess, if any.

Consequently, revision petition filed by petitioner is partly allowed and impugned order dated 19.10.2012 passed by the learned State Commission in S.C. Case No. FA/354/2011 - Smt. Ranu Saha & Ors. Vs. Sri Prasanta Das & Anr. and order of District Forum dated 29.09.2010 passed in Complaint No. 325 of 2009 - Sri Prasanta Das Vs. M/s. Sradha Construction & Ors. is partly modified and compensation of Rs.50,000/- is reduced to Rs.20,000/- and rest of the order is upheld.