West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

Cc/573/2014

Balai Lal Das. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Arup Mukherjee. - Opp.Party(s)

31 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , JUDGES’ COURT, ALIPORE KOLKATA-700 027

 

         C.C. CASE NO. _573_ OF ___2014__

 

DATE OF FILING : 27.11.2014                  DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  31/07/2015

 

Present                         :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :    Mrs. Sharmi Basu & Jinjir Bhattacharya

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT              :   Balai Lal Das, 183/2A, P.N. Mitra Brick Field Road, Kol-53, P.S. Behala.

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                            :   Arup Mukherjee, 147F, Prince Golam Hossain Saha Road, Kol-32 P.S. Jadavpur.

________________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

 

Mrs. Sharmi Basu, Member

The instant case has been filed by the complainant under section  12 of the C.P Act, 1986 with allegation of deficiency in service against the O.Ps.

In a nutshell the case of the complainant is that a building was constructed by the O.P on the premises of the complainant at 183/2A, P.N Mitra Brick Field Road, Kolkata -53, P.S. Behala on the basis of the Development Agreement dated 19.02.2010 entered into between them.  In the Development Agreement in Article V Page no.11 it is mentioned that the owner shall be exclusively entitled to all that entire second floor and 40% of the ground floor of the building . After construction though possession of entire second floor has been delivered to the complainant but the possession of  40% of the ground floor has not been handed over to the complainant . O.P has sold the entire ground floor to a third party namely Abilash Paul . The complainant is the owner of 40% of the ground floor and he is entitled to get the amount of Rs.5,60,000/- for the 40% of ground floor of that building, which was sold to Abilash Paul. Inspite of several requests followed by letter yielded no result and hence this case.

            Inspite of service of notice upon the O.P, he does not care to appear for which the case proceeded exparte against him.

After scrutinizing four corners of the case following points are in limelight :

1.             Whether the complainant is a Consumer or not.
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps or not.
3. Whether the complainant is eligible to get relief as prayed for partly or fully.

                                                            Decision with reasons

            All the points are taken together for discussion as they are interrelated.

            From the record it is crystal clear that the complainant being a land owner entered into a Development Agreement on 19.2.2010   for construction of a building with ownership flat. After completion of the building ,the developer/O.P delivered the complainant only the possession of the 2^nd floor of the building on 8.10.2012 but did not hand over 40% share of the ground floor of that building (As per Development Agreement). The O.P was  bound to pay the sum of Rs.5,60,000/- at the time of registration of the flat which were under the allocation of the land owner i.e. 40% of the share (Article V Page no.11 of the Development Agreement dt.19.02.2010). As per record the developer sold the entire ground floor for Rs.14,00,000/- and gave possession on 8.10.2012 to the purchaser but did not give the share of 40% amounting to Rs.5,60,000/- to the complainant.

            Therefore, in the light of the above discussion we have no hesitation to hold that the O.P has committed deficiency in service and duty bound to pay 40% share of Rs.14,00,000/- i.e. Rs.5,60,000/- to the complainant.

            It is beyond doubt that due to aforesaid inaction and deficiency in service of the O.P complainant has to suffer immense harassment, mental agony and financial loss and O.P is liable to aptly compensate the complainant.

            Thus all the points are discussed in favour of the complainant and case succeeds.

            Hence,

                                                            Ordered

That the case is allowed exparte with cost.

The O.P is directed to pay Rs.5,60,000/- and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant and Rs.3000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days from this date, failing which, O.P is to pay Rs.100/- per diem to the complainant from the stipulated period till realization.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the parties free of cost.

 

Member                                                           Member                                               President Dictated and corrected by me

                                                Member

 

 

The judgement in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

                       

                                                            Ordered

That the case is allowed exparte with cost.

The O.P is directed to pay Rs.5,60,000/- and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant and Rs.3000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days from this date, failing which, O.P is to pay Rs.100/- per diem to the complainant from the stipulated period till realization.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the parties free of cost.

 

Member                                                           Member                                               President