11....14.12.2021....
The Ld. Advocate for the O.P. No. 2 is present.
Today is fixed for delivery of final order. Final order containing 4 pages is ready. It is sealed, signed and delivered in open Commission.
It is ordered that,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the O.P. No. 2 without cost and dismissed ex-parte against the rest without cost.
Let copies of final order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per rules.
The Final order also be made available in www.confonet.nic.in .
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SOUTH 24-PARGANAS
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 144
C.C.NO. 179 OF 2019
DATE OF FILING DATE OF ADMISSION DATE OF FINAL ORDER
01.10.2019 25.10.2019 14.12.2021
Present : President : Asish Kumar Senapati
Member : Sangita Paul
COMPLAINANT : 1. Asish Ghosh, S/O – Sri Swapan Ghosh.
2. Smt. Soma Ghosh, W/O – Asish Ghosh.
Both residing at Flat No. A 303 (3rd Floor), 20 S.N. Banerjee Road, P.S. – Budgebudge, Kolkata – 700137.
Versus
O.P/O.Ps : 1. Smt. Namita Dutta, W/O- Late Gurudas Dutta.
2. Debiprasad Dutta, S/O- Late Gurudas Dutta.
3. Ramaprasad Dutta, S/O- Late Gurudas Dutta.
All residing at 20 S.N. Banerjee Road, P.S. – Budgebudge, Kolkata – 700137.
Advocate for the complainants : Mousumi Ghatak
Advocate for the O.P. No. 2 : Apurba Sautya
Sri Asish Kumar Senapati, President
This is a complaint filed by One Sri Asish Ghosh and another (hereinafter referred to as the complainants) against Smt. Namita Dutta and 2 others (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for a direction to upon the O.Ps. to finish the outstanding works and to form a registered association or to pay back the amount and to pay compensation of Rs. 2 Lac and litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/- against the O.Ps.
The sum and substance of the complaint is as follows:
The complainants being husband and wife purchased a flat on 22.10.2011 on payment of Rs. 9,50,000/- and mutated their names in the Budgebudge Municipality. That after purchase the complainants found that the O.Ps. erected one floor illegally and the O.Ps. informed them that the floor was constructed on the basis of revised sanctioned plan though the revised plan has not been given to the complainants. That the O.Ps. received a lump sum amount from the complainants for emergency purpose but did not form register of association and did not render any maintenance of the flat. The complainants also requested to the O.Ps. to handover the key of the roof, but of no result. A notice was sent on 05.07.2019 for completion of unfinished work but the O.Ps. did not complete the works in spite of receipt of the letter on 06.07.2019. Hence, this case has been filed praying for reliefs.
The O.P. No. 2 filed W/V on 04.02.2020 contending that the case is not maintainable and there is no work pending and the flat was handed over to the complainant on 22.07.2011. That the flat owners’ committee was formed in October, 2016 but the complainants have not paid monthly maintenance charges to the committee last 18 months and the committee has decided not to give the key of the ultimate roof to the complainants. That the case may be dismissed with cost.
On the basis of the above versions, the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :-
- Are the complainants consumers under the provisions of C.P Act?
- Is the case maintainable?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.?
- Are the complainants entitled to get any relief against the O.Ps., as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no. 1 & 2 :-
The Ld. Advocate for the complainants submits that the complainants purchased the flat on 22.07.2011 but subsequently found that the O.Ps. constructed one floor on the roof by violating the building plan. He submits that the complaint is maintainable and the complainants are consumers.
In reply the Ld. Advocate for the O.P. No. 2 submits that the case is not maintainable as the complainants purchased the flat from the O.Ps. on 22.07.2011 and mutated their names in the municipality. It is urged that the complainants are not consumers as there is no unfinished work pending.
We have gone through the materials on record and considered the submission of the Ld. Advocates for the complainants and the O.P. No. 2.
Admittedly the complainants purchased a flat from the O.Ps. on payment of Rs. 9,50,000/- on 22.07.2019 and they mutated their names in the register of Budgebudge Municipality. Therefore, it can be safely said that the building in question is complete and there is no unfinished work as alleged by the complainants. It is the allegation of the O.P. No. 2 that the Flat Owners’ Committee has decided not to handover key to the complainants due to non-payment of maintenance charges. We find that there is no privity of contract between the complainants and the O.Ps. for completion of any unmentioned unfinished work and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Therefore, we hold that the complainants are not consumers and the case is not maintainable.
Both the points are thus disposed of.
Point Nos. 3 & 4 :-
The Ld. Advocate for the complainants submits that the O.Ps. have deficiency in service as they have not yet completed the unfinished work of the flat. She also submits that the complainants are entitled to get compensation and other reliefs against the O.Ps.
The Ld. Advocate for the O.P. No. 2 submits that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No. 2 and the complainants are not entitled to get any relief in this case.
We have gone through the materials on record including the BNA submitted by both sides. We have already decided that the complainants are not consumers and the case is not maintainable. We find that the complainants have failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Therefore, we hold that the complainants are not entitled to get any relief in this case.
Point Nos. 3 & 4 are thus disposed of.
In the result, the complaint case fails.
Fees paid are corrected.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the O.P. No. 2 without cost and dismissed ex-parte against the rest without cost.
Let copies of final order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per rules.
The Final order also be made available in www.confonet.nic.in .
Dictated and corrected by me
President
