LAWS(WBCDRC)-2009-12-4

MENOKA GHOSHANI Vs. PADDA BALA GHOSH

Decided On December 15, 2009
Menoka Ghoshani Appellant
V/S
Padda Bala Ghosh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application u/s 15 of the C.P Act, 1986 filed by one Smt Menoka Ghoshani against the order dated 1.6.09 passed by the District Forum, Nadia in case no CC/08/51 wherein the Forum allowed the complaint in part without any compensation or cost. The OP No 1/Appellant herein was directed to cause registration of the scheduled property as mentioned in the schedule of the complaint in favour of the Complainant who is the Respondent before us or to refund a sum of Rs. 64,000/ - with interest @ 8% p.a from the date of payment i.e from 14.11.06 till date of the order within 40 days failing which the amount would accrue further interest @ 8 % p.a from the date of the order till payment of the amount. The Appellant is a senior citizen of 70 years and a helpless lady. She is also the mother of Respondent no -1/Complainant.

(2.) THE case in brief is that the Respondent no -1 filed a complaint against the Appellant stating inter alia that she had paid Rs. 64,000/ - to the Appellant for purchasing a plot of land as mentioned in the schedule of the complaint but the Appellant did not execute the deed of conveyance in favour of the Respondent no -1 and hence, the case. It appears that the case was heard and disposed of exparte by the Forum below on the basis of evidence of affidavit led by the Complainant and one Hiren Ghosh. The Forum relied on the evidences of PW -1 and 2 and accepted the transaction of Rs. 64,000/ - between the Respondent No -1 and the Appellant. The Appellant herein contended that the order passed by the Forum below was not proper and not according to law as it was passed mechanically without applying any judicial mind. The Forum failed to consider that the dispute as ventilated by the Complainant was beyond the scope and purview of the CP Act, 1986. Evidently the dispute related to purchase and sale of a plot of agricultural land and such dispute was beyond the purview of the C.P. Act. It was also alleged by the Appellant that the Complainant/ Respondent no -1 did not pay the consideration of the plot of land in question and as such the question of hading over possession of the said plot of land and execution / registration of the deed of conveyance in respect of the said plot of agricultural land did not arise. The Forum below also failed to consider that such dispute concerning sale of a plot of land would not come under the ambit of the definition of construction as mentioned in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As such the impugned order was a defective one and not sustainable.

(3.) THE two Respondents in spite of receiving notice did not appear before us for contesting the instant appeal. As a result, we heard the Appellant exparte and perused the impugned order of the Forum below. Evidently, the dispute related to the sale and purchase of a plot of agricultural land and such transaction was purely a sale transaction and there was no whisper or averment relating to housing construction. Obviously such disputes were beyond the scope or ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended. The complaint filed before the Forum below was, therefore, not maintainable. The appeal thus succeeds.