LAWS(NCD)-2018-12-17

RIA ENTERPRISE Vs. GOBINDA KUMAR BISWAS

Decided On December 05, 2018
Ria Enterprise Appellant
V/S
Gobinda Kumar Biswas Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 05.08.2015, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Kolkata (for short the State Commission), wherein the Appeal, preferred by the Respondent herein, has been allowed and the order dated 22.07.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas at Barasat (for short the District Forum) in Complaint Case No. 16/2014 has been modified to the extent that the Petitioner herein, who was the Opposite Party in the Complaint and the Respondent in the Appeal preferred before the State Commission, was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- only to the Respondent herein (Complainant) as compensation within one month from the date of the order. Rest of the directions given by the District Forum were maintained.

(2.) It may be mentioned here that before the District Forum the Petitioner herein had not put in appearance and did not file any written version and, therefore, the matter proceeded ex-parte. Before the District Forum a specific plea was raised by the Respondent herein (Complainant) that possession of the shop, even though the sale deed was executed on 14.12.2012, had not been handed over and in the passage to that shop, some construction materials were being kept, which were creating hindrance in the running of the business, even if possession of the shop was given. The Complainant claimed certain damages, which have been allowed by the District Forum. It may be mentioned here that the Petitioner herein had preferred an Appeal before the State Commission but it was dismissed on the ground of limitation, which order has become final, as no Revision Petition was filed before this Commission.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that on a perusal of the sale deed, it is clear that possession of the shop in question was handed over to the Respondent herein (Complainant) and, therefore, there is no question of any direction for handing over possession afresh or giving any amount as compensation.