DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS ,
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. 52_ OF ___2016
DATE OF FILING : 31.5. 2016 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 19.04.2018
Present : President :
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker & Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : 1. Sri Ajit Kumar Ghosh, son of late Nani Gopal Ghosh
2. Shyamali Ghosh, wife of Asit Kumar Ghosh, both of 68, Jadav Sarker Road, P.O Rajpur, P.S Sonarpur, Dist. S-24PGs. Kolkata – 149.
- VERSUS -
O.P/O.Ps : 1. Sri Kurunamoy Nath
2. Sri Prabir Nath
3. Sri Ganesh Chandra Nath
4. Sri Dinesh Chandra Nath
5. Sri Kamalesh Nath
6. Sri Samaresh Nath
All sons of late Harendra Nath of Jadav Sarkar Road, Baikunthapur, P.S Sonarpur, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Kol-149.
7. Subhasis Mondal, son of Sri Mahadev Mondal of B-1/5,002 Prantik Peerless Housing Society, Sonarpur, South 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 150.
_____________________________________________________________________
J U D G E M E N T
Sri Subrata Sarker, Member
Though the possession of the flat has been made over to the complainants by the developers and though the deed of conveyance has already been registered in favour of the complainants on 31.12.2015 , the flat has remained incomplete still now and no completion certificate has been provided to the complainant by the developer i.e O.P-7 and that is why the complainants have come up before this Forum with the filing of the instant case under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 ,praying for passing an order directing the O.Ps to provide completion certificate to them and to make payment of Rs.1 lac as compensation for physical and mental harassment suffered by them. Hence, this case.
The O.P nos. 1 to 6 have filed written statement, wherein it is contended that there is no cause of action against them. They are land owners and they are not responsible for providing any services to the complainants and, therefore, the complaint should be dismissed against them.
The O.P-7 has also filed written statement to contend that he delivered possession of the flat to the complainants on 31.12.2015 and that sale deed was registered in their favour on that date. After delivery of possession the complainants cannot have any grievance. The grievance is baseless and there is no reason for bringing the case against him. The case should , therefore, be dismissed in limini.
Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
- Is the case maintainable against O.P nos. 1 to 6 in its present form and in law?
- Is there any deficiency in service as alleged on the part of the O.P-7 by not furnishing completion certificate in time and by not completing the flat of the complainant?
- Are the complainants entitled to relief or reliefs as prayed for?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Evidences, questionnaires, replies and BNAs filed by the parties are kept in the record.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 :
It is admitted that the O.P nos. 1 to 6 are land owners. The flat has already been registered in favour of the complainant. Now, the allegation of the complainant is that the flat is still now in incomplete position and the completion certificate is yet to be furnished to them. Completion certificate is to be furnished to them by the developer i.e O.P-7. O.P-7 being the developer is answerable to the complainant for any kind of incomplete services and the land owners i.e O.P nos. 1 to 6 are in no way responsible for providing any kind of services to the complainants. There is no cause of action arising against the O.P nos. 1 to 6 and, therefore, the case appears to be not maintainable against them.
Hence, this point is primarily answered against the complainants.
Point nos. 2 and 3:-
In the instant case, the developer i.e O.P-7 has filed written statement and nowhere in the written statement it is averred that the completion certificate has been provided to the complainants. In the circumstances and having regard to this aspect we feel no hesitation to say that the developer i.e O.P-7 has not been able to provide completion certificate to the complainants for the reasonsthat the subject flat is still suffering from incompleteness. At the same time, it comes across on perusal of the deed of conveyance dated 31.12.2015 , a copy of which is furnished herein, that the consideration price of the flat was Rs.16,28,000/- ,but not Rs.15,28,000/-as alleged by the complainants. The complainants have only paid Rs.15,28,000/- to O.P-7 i.e the developer and they are still liable to make payment of Rs.1 lac to the developer.
In view of these circumstances of the case, the following order is passed for proper adjudication of the matter in dispute.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
-
That the complaint case be and the same is decreed on contest against O.P -7 with cost of Rs.5000/- and dismissed on contest against the O.P nos. 1 to 6 without cost.
The O.P-7 is directed to furnish the completion certificate to the complainants after having completed the incomplete works ,if any, as per sanctioned building plan within two months of this order ,subject to payment of Rs.1 lac to O.P-7 by the complainants and also to make payment of litigation cost Rs.5000/- as referred to above by the O.P-7 to the complainant within the period specified above , failing which the complainants are at liberty to execute the order in accordance with the provisions of law.
Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
Member Member
Dictated and corrected by me
Member
