In the Court of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata, 8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087. CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 25 / 2009 1) Smt. Krishna Rakshit, 2/1, Broad Street, Kolkata-19. ---------- Complainant ---Verses--- 1) Sri Arup Ghosh, 13, Broad Street, Kolkata-19. 2) Sri Mihir Kumar Base and 3) Sri Subhas Kumar Basu Both of 2/1, Broad Street, Kolkata-19. ---------- Opposite Party Present : Sri S. K. Majumdar, President. Sri T.K. Bhattachatya, Member. Order No. 1 0 Dated 2 1 / 1 2 / 2 0 0 9. Complainant Smt. Krishna Rakshit by filing a petition on 20.1.09 u/s 12 of the C.P. Act has prayed for Rs.1 lakh for completion of unfinished job of sewerage, main door and the external surface building in terms of the development agreement by and between the parties, the developer/o.p. no.1 as described in the 3rd schedule of the agreement and for Rs.25000/- for obtaining completion certificate to be given by the developer/o.p. no.1 and for compensation of Rs.1 lakh and for issuing direction upon o.p. no.1 to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of he purchased flat and the car parking space in question and in default, for such execution and registration of the deed of conveyance through this forum. Fact of the case in short is that premises no.2/1, Broad Street, Kolkata-19 belong to one Late Renukana Basu which was purchased in benami in her name by her husband Dr. Sachindranath Basu. Renukana died intestate leaving behind her husband and one majopr son Mihir and minor son Subhas and three minor daughters Manju Rani, Mira Rani and Ira Rani. Dr. Sachindranath Basu filed a title suit no.74 of 1997 in the Second Court of Subordinate Judge, Alipore and the suit was decreed declaring his right title and interest in the suit property purchased by him in benami of his wife. Sachindranath executed a will in favour of his two sons o.p. nos.2 and 3 on 10.2.1992 and o.p. nos.2 and 3 legatees were appointed executers of the will. They obtained probate of the will and became the full owners of the property in question. Thereafter o.p. nos.2 and 3 entered into a development agreement with Arup Kr. Ghosh o.p. no.1 the developer of the premises for constructing a G+3 storied residential building in which on each floor of which there will be one flat; and o.p. nos.2 and 3 will get one flat each and developer/o.p. no.1 will get flat no.3 on the 3rd floor measuring a super built up area of 850 sq.ft. and one half covered car parking space measuring 120 sq.ft. in the ground floor and the developer will have the right to sale that flat on the 3rd floor with the half covered car parking space in the ground floor. Thereafter the developer/o.p. no.1 entered into an agreement of sale with the complainant on 10.10.03 under which the developer agreed to sale that flat no.3 on the 3rd floor and half covered car parking space measuring 120 sqlft. in the ground floor of that building and complainant agreed to buy the same at Rs.14,50,000/- and the complainant paid full consideration money on different dates and also paid Rs.10,000/- for electricity connection and Rs.1000/- for labour charges for laying marbles on the bathroom floor and on receipt of full consideration money along with those charges developer/o.p. no.1 delivered possession of the flat in question to the complainant on 24.4.05 leaving out many unfinished works in that flat. Even in spite of giving possession of the flat in question and repeated assurance the developer/o.p. no.1 did not complete the unfinished works and did not also execute and register a deed in favour of the complainant. So the complainant has filed this case against the o.ps with the aforesaid prayer. Decision with reasons :- Main points to be decided in this case are that whether the o.p. no.1/develolper has executed and registered a deed in favour of the complainant in terms of the agreement. As because he has not done so, complainant has filed this case against the o.ps. and more particularly, his grievance is against o.p. no.1/developer of the flat in question. It appears on perusal of the record that even in spite of receipt of notices o.ps. have not come and so the case is heard ex parte. There is no denying of the fact that the complainant had purchased the flat in question on payment of full consideration money along with the car parking space. We have perused he development agreement dt.18.7.01, annex-A, between Mihir Kr. Basu and Subhas Kr. Basu both son of Late Sachindranath Basu and the developer/o.p. no.1. We have also perused the agreement for sale, annex-B, between o.p. no.1 and Smt. Krishna Rakshit. We have also perused the details statement of payment made by the complainant to o.p. no.1, annex-C. And it appears that even in spite of receiving full consideration money electric charges and others, the o.p. no.1 delivered possession to the flat in question to the complainant remaining some works unfinished and in spite of his assurance he did not complete the unfinished works of the flat in question. It is also the specific grievance of the complainant that for doing the works of fitting the main door, sewerage system and for painting external surface on the snowcem as described in the schedule, he had to incur cost of Rs.1 lakh which in spite of assurance the o.p. no.1 did not do so. He has also ventilated his grievance by his letter wherein he has stated no mirror was fitted in the toilet as per specification. No door, no shower, no wash basin etc. were fitted in the toilet and 40% of the marble cracked and the wood used for doors and windows was substandard etc. So the complainant demanded Rs.76,000/- from the developer/o.p. no.1 as compensation for deficiency of service. O.p. no.2 in his reply letter dt.12.6.08 suggested some modifications and corrections of the draft deed of conveyance, but it is strange to note that o.p. no.1 remained silent thereafter. Again on 22.5.06 complainant sent letter by speed post requesting o.p. no.1 to approve the draft deed of conveyance, but o.p. no.1 did not take any note of it, annex-E and F are worth mentioning in this connection. We have also perused the affidavit of examination in chief of the complainant which is corroborative in nature with the averment made out in the petition of complaint. In view of this position there is nothing to disbelieve the unchallenged testimony of the complainant. Therefore, considering the facts, circumstances and evidence on record we are of the opinion that the complainant has succeeded to prove his case. Hence, Ordered, That the petition of complaint is allowed ex parte without cost against o.p. nos.2 and 3, but with cost against o.p. no.1, Sri Arup Ghosh, the developer of the flat in question fully described in schedule ‘B’ of the petition of complaint filed on 20.1.09. O.p. nos.1,2 and 3 are directed to execute and register a deed in favour of the complainant Smt. Krishna Rakshit of the property fully described in schedule ‘B’ in the petition of complaint positively within 45 days from the date of communication of this order at the cost of the complainant, failing which will get the flat in question along with car parking space executed and registered by this Forum by appointing a Pleader Commissioner at his own cost for the said purpose. Complainant do also get an award of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only as compensation and Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only as litigation and Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only for defraying the cost of unfinished work of sewerage, main door etc as described in ‘A’ of his prayer of the petition of complaint within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 10% p.a. till full realization. Fees paid are correct. Supply certified copy of this order to the parties on payment of prescribed fees. _____Sd-_______ _____Sd-_______ MEMBER PRESIDENT | 
