HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT
- This consumer complaint case has been filed by the complainants under section 35 read with section 38(ii) & 39(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 ( in short, ‘the Act’) alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite parties.
- The complainants have filed this consumer complaint case being No.CC/34/2024 against the opposite parties praying for the following reliefs :-
“i) To direct the Opposite Parties to handover the possession of the completely Newly constructed flat to Complainant No. 1 in respect of his proportionate share of 9.26% = 239 Square feet of the constructed area and to hand over the Complainant No. 2 her proportionate share of 44.5% = 1148 Square Feet of the total constructed area which is according to their proportionate share in the land as recorded in Clause 6.6 of Article –VI of the said Development Agreement out of the total 50% constructed area approximately measuring about 1387 Square Feet under Premises No. / Holding No. 381, G.T. Road, Police Station – Golabari, District – Howrah, recorded in Mouza– Golabari, R.S. Khatian No. 153, L.R. Khatian No. 521, 139, 424, 49, 155 & 492, R.S. 297, L.R. Dag No. 303, within Ward No. 15 Howrah Municipal Corporation, morefully described in Schedule – “B” herein.
ii) To direct the Opposite Parties to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to the each complainants totalizing to Rs.20,00,000/- for delay in delivery of possession.
iii) To direct the Opposite Parties to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- each totalizing to Rs.20,00,000/- to the complainants also on the ground of gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of OPs as well as for immense sufferings for a prolonged period; mental agony, harassment suffered by the complainants and opportunity losses;
iv) To direct the opposite parties to produce the completion certificate in respect of the constructed building at the Schedule –“B” property.
v) To direct the OPs to pay Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainants as litigation cost.
vi) Any further order or orders, direction or directions as the Learned Forum may deem fit and proper.”
- The complainants have valued the consumer case at Rs.77,51,943/-. To prove the valuation of this case the complainants have filed copy of one e - Assessment issued by the Directorate of Registration & Stamp Revenue, Govt. of West Bengal. The said e Assessment copy of e-Assessment slip discloses that the same was issued on the basis of the date of query on 26.03.2024 i.e. at the time of filing of the present case. The valuation of the property was obtained as calculated in the year 2024. So, the same cannot be accepted in the present case.
- Record goes to show that the development agreement was held between the complainants and others and the opposite party No. 1 on 16.11.2015. The complainants have not produced any value of the property with regard to the development agreement which was held between the complainants and others and the opposite party No. 1 on 16.11.2015 for the reasons I am of the opinion that as at present the complainants have not been able to satisfy me as to on what basis the claims have been quantified at Rs.77,51,943/-. I am convinced that the claims have been inflated in order to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission.
- Consequently, I decline to admit the complaint. The complaint is dismissed accordingly with liberty to the complainants to suitably amend the complaint and file the same before the appropriate Consumer Commission. It is needless to clarify anything observed herein shall be considered as an expression of opinion on the merits of the complaint since it was pointed out that fresh complaint at this juncture, may be barred by limitation as prescribed in section 69 of the Act. I direct that if the complainants choose to file fresh complaint, their application for condonation of delay shall be considered by excluding the time spent before this Commission.
- The complaint case is, thus, disposed of accordingly.
