DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,
KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. __43_ _ OF ___2017
DATE OF FILING :_30.32017 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: _6.8.2018
Present : Presiding Member : Subrata Sarker
Member(s) : Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : 1. Ms. Oeindrila Sil, daughter of Debdas Sil of Flat no.S-2, 2nd floor.
2. Smt. Anonya Ghosh, daughter of Anis Kumar Ghosh of Flat no.S-1, 2nd Floor.
3. Sri Kinsuk Chakraborty, son of Kamalesh Chakraborty, Flat no.F-II, 1st Floor.
4. Sri Sadhan Chandra Karmakar, son of Manindra Chandra Karmakar of Flat no.F-1, 1st Floor, all are residing at Rangamati Apartment, 72 No. Canel Side Road, Garia, Kolkata -84, P.S Sonarpur.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. M/s Home Solution, A Proprietorship Farm, at 19, Bidhan Pally, P.O Garia, P.S Regent Park, Now Bansdroni, Kolkata-84, represented by its Proprietors-
i) Sri Rajib Das, son of late Shanti Ranjan Das of 41, Vivek Park, P.O Garia, P.S Regent Park, now Bansdroni, Kolkata-84.
2. Srimati Phulu Rani Devi Barman, wife of late Dhirendra Kumar Dev Barman.
3. Kartick Deb Barman, son of late Dhirendra Kumar Deb Barman.
4. Smt. Swapna Deb Barman, wife of late Mridul Deb Barman
5. Smt. Sukla Lodh, wife of Sri Bindu Lodh
All of Rangamati Apartment, 72 No. Canel Side Road, Garia, Kolkata -84, P.S Sonarpur.
_______________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Subrata Sarker, Presiding Member
The facts in its narrow compass runs as follows.
The O.P nos. 2 to 5 are the land owners and O.P-1 is developer/promoter. A joint venture agreement was executed between the O.P-1 and the land owners on 22.1.2010 and thereby the O.P-1 agreed to raise a G+3 storied building upon the land as succinctly described in Schedule A to the complaint. Four Sale Agreements were also executed between the complainants and the O.P-1 separately and thereby the developers i.e O.P-1 agreed to sell different plots marked as S1,S2,F1 and F2 to the complainants and those plots are also succinctly described in Schedule B to the complaint. Total consideration price was also paid by the complainants to the developers. Flats were also registered in favour of the complainants and the possession thereof was also handed over to the complainants. But, no completion certificate has been made over to the complainant as yet by the developer. Persistent requests for supply of completion certificate to the complainants has failed to stimulate the developer and, therefore, the complainants have filed the instant case ,praying for supply of completion certificate and payment of compensation etc. Hence ,arises the instant case.
It is only the land owners i.e O.P nos. 2,3 and 5 have been contesting the case by filing written statement ,wherein it is contended mainly by them that the complainants are not consumers of them ,nor did they promise any kind of service to the complainants. The instant case is ,therefore, not maintainable against them and that there is no deficiency in service on their part in so far as the flats of the complainants are concerned.
Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Is the case maintainable in its present form and in Law?
- Are the O.P guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
EVIDENCE ON AFFIDAVIT
Evidence on affidavit is filed by the complainant and the contesting O.Ps. Questionnaire, reply and BNA filed herein are kept in the record after consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1, 2 & 3 :
The instant case is filed by four complainants. Complainants have purchased different plots from the developer i.e O.P-1. They have purchased different plots by different sale agreements. Now the question which arises for consideration is whether such kind of complaint is maintainable in law. Section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 lays down the manner for filing of the complaint. It does never provide any kind of provision for filing joint complaint. Joint complaint is a misnomer in Law in so far as the provision under C.P Act, 1986 is concerned. A representative complaint may be filed under section 12 (1)(c ) of the C.P Act, 1986. But, in case of filing of representative complaint, prior permission of the Court is required to be taken and such representative complaint may be filed when there are numerous consumers.
Coming to the facts of the instant case, it is found that there are no numerous consumers in this case and no prior permission for filing case under section 12(1)(c ) of the aforesaid Act has been taken by the complainants. More than one complainants can file a complaint ,when they all are jointly interested in one cause of action. In the instant case, complainants are not jointly interested in the cause of action. Cause of action is nothing but bundle of material facts upon which the complainant relies to prove his case.
In the instant case, there are four Sale Agreements and these sale agreements have been executed in favour of the complainants separately. The four agreements also relate to different flats. These are vital facts and are undoubtedly part and parcel of causes of action. Regards being had to all these facts ,transpiring in the petition of complaint by itself and also in view of the legal provision as pointed out above, we are of the opinion that the complainants have made an attempt to join several causes of action in the instant case and, therefore, the instant case is bad for misjoinder of causes of action , which is not tenable in Law.
Point no.1 is thus answered against the complainant.
Therefore, the other two points i.e Point nos. 1 and 2 need not be discussed.
In the result, the case fails.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP.P, but without any cost. The complainants are given liberty to file their individual cases afresh.
Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
Member Presiding Member
Dictated and corrected by me
Presiding Member
