West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/51/2015

Debabrata Ghosh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aryabhumi Constructions - Opp.Party(s)

21 Aug 2015

ORDER

                                                             DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

Kapot Kumar Chattopadhyay, Member

 

Complaint Case No.51/2015

 

    Debabrata Ghosh………….…………Complainant

Versus

                                       1)   Aryabhumi Constructions,

                                 2)   Binod Kumar Gupta;

                                 3)   Shankarlal Mundhra;

                                 4)   Sri Sailendra Kumar Jain,

                                 5)   Sri Mahesh Kumar Srivastava.…………..Opp. Parties.

 

For the Complainant: Mr.Asim Kumar Dutta, Advocate.

For the O.P.               : -

 

Decided on: - 21/08/2015

                                

ORDER

               Kapot Kumar Chattopadhyay, Member-Complainant case, in brief, is that he is a bona fide purchaser of a flat, lying on a plot of  land being holding no.403/1, Dhekia, Malancha Road, P.S. Kharagpur in the district of Paschim Medinipur. Opposite party no.1, is a partnership firm, duly represented by opposite party nos. 2 to 5, being the partners of opposite party no. 1.  Opposite party no. 6 & 7 are the owners of the said land and opposite party no.8 is the constituted attorney and being so authorized, opposite party no.8 entered into a development agreement with the opposite party nos.1 to 5 for constructing a multi-storied building on that plot of land under some terms and conditions.  Opposite party nos.1 to 5 are engaged in the business of real estate and they constructed a multi storied building on the afore mentioned plot of land.  Complainant,

Contd………………….P/2

 

( 2 )

prior to purchase of that flat in question in the said multi-storied building, entered into an agreement for sale with the  opposite party nos. 1 to 5 for purchase of a flat in the said multi storied building and in the said agreement of sale, they agreed to provide lift and other amenities in the said complex.  Subsequently, by a registered sale deed, the complainant purchased the flat in question after paying consideration money.  After such purchase, the complainant went to take possession of the flat and he found that the lift of the building has not been installed and the toilet of the flat was incomplete.  The complainant requested the opposite parties to install the lift in the said multi storied building complex which is a  G + 4 building.  It is stated that the flat of the complainant, which he purchased from the   opposite party nos. 1 to 5, is on the top floor of that building and being a chronic heart patient, he is unable to use the said flat, save & except on occasional visits of the flat.  The complainant has paid the entire consideration  money of that flat in question amounting to Rs.21,38,000/- to the  opposite party on different dates as mentioned in Para 13 of his complaint.   He also incurred huge amount of money for furnishing the flat and he had to incur a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for completing the bathroom/toilet of the flat.  There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as they have failed to install the lift in the said building and to complete the toilet of the flat.  Since, in spite of repeated request, the opposite parties did nothing for installation of the lift, so the complainant was compelled to issue a notice dated 23/03/15 to the opposite parties by registered post.  Even after such service of notice, the opposite parties did nothing.  The complainant, being a heart patient, is unable to use the said flat on the top floor of that building and for such act of the opposite party, he has suffered pecuniary loss, mental shock, pain and agony.  Hence, the complaint, praying for the reliefs, as per prayer of the petition of complaint.

                 In spite of receipt of notice of this case, none of the opposite parties appeared to contest  and hence this case was heard ex parte. 

                 To prove his case, the complainant has filed a written examination-in-chief, supported by affidavit and during his evidence as PW-1, he tendered that written examination-in-chief and produced all necessary documents.

                  From the written examination-in-chief, supported by affidavit, of the complainant and other documents e.g. agreement for sale, deed of sale etc, we find that in terms of agreement for sale, executed by the opposite parties no. 1-5 and the complainant, the complainant purchased the flat in question at a consideration of Rs.21,38,000/- .  From the copies of agreement of sale and deed of conveyance, we find that there was agreement for installment of lift in the said building.  According to the

Contd………………….P/3

 

( 3 )

complainant, as it appears from his petition of complaint as well as examination-in-chief, remaining unchallenged, we find that the opposite parties did not install any such lift in the said multi-storied building, thereby causing inconvenience to the complainant in using the said flat.  It is also the unchallenged evidence of the complainant that he had to incur a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for completion  of the bathroom/toilet of that flat.  Considering the said evidence of the complainant, remaining unchallenged and the documents, filed by him in this case, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party nos.1 to 5 and such deficiency is required to be removed by directing the opposite party nos. 1 to 5 to install the lift in the flat in question in terms of agreement for sale and deed of conveyance. That apart opposite party nos. 1 to 5 are also liable to pay compensation to the complainant for harassment and pain suffered by him for the act of the opposite party nos. 1 to 5. Other reliefs, as prayed for, are not      maintainable and as such refused.

                                        Hence, it is,

                                              Ordered,

                                                                    that the complaint case no.51/2015

 is allowed ex-parte in part against the opposite party nos. 1 to 5 with cost and dismissed ex-parte against the rest.     Opposite party nos. 1 to 5 are directed to install the lift in the said complex in question and to pay Rs.1,00,000/-    as compensation  to the complainant within three month from the date of order.

 

 Dictated & Corrected by me    

                  Sd/-                                                                                              Sd/-

              Member                                                                                        President

                                                                                                                  D.C.D.R.F.

                                                                                                            Paschim Medinipur