DATE OF FILING : 30-04-2012.
DATE OF S/R : 30-05-2012.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 09-10-2012.
Smt. Chandrani Dutta,
d/o. Sri Bankim Chandra Dutta,
residing at 43, Sashi Bhushan Chatterjee Lane,
Flat No. 109 ( 2nd floor ), P.S. Bally,
District –Howrah.--------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. Bally Bazar Brahma Baroari Committee,
represented by its Joint Secretary, Sri Bholanath Ghosh,
son of Sri Kanailal Ghosh of 52, Sashi Bhusan Chatterjee Lane,
P.O. Bally, P.S. Bally,
District – Howrah.
2. Bally Bazar Brahma Baroari Committee,
represented by its Joint Secretary, Sri Pronab Ghosh,
son of late Gopal Chandra Ghosh
of 52, Sashi Bhusan Chatterjee Lane, P.O. Bally, P.S. Bally,
District – Howrah.
3. MAA SANTOSHI CONSTRUCTION,
a partnership firm, having their office at Saheb Bagan,
P.O. Samabayapally, P.S. Bally,
District – Howrah.
4. Sri Amal Sarkar,
son of Sri Hemanta Sarkar,
resident of Saheb Bagan , P.O. Samabayapally, P.S. Bally,
District – Howrah,
partner of MAA SANTOSHI CONSTRUCTION.
5. Sri Debasish Dutta,
son of Sri Prantosh Dutta,
of village & P.O. Bally, Durgapur,
District – Howrah,
partner of MAA SANTOSHI CONSTRUCTION.
6. Sri Tapan Das,
Son of Sri Sital Chandra Das,
Of village & P.O. Bally, Durgapur,
District – Howrah,
partner of MAA SANTOSHI CONSTRUCTION.------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
Complainant Smt. Chandrima Dutta, d/o. Shri Bankim Chandra Dutta by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended upto date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.ps. in terms of the prayer contained in para 14 of her petition of complaint filed by the complainant on 30-04-2012 before this Forum.
Brief fact of the case is that by virtue of a development agreement between o.p. nos. 1 & 2 and o.p. nos. 3, 4, 5 & 6 , o.p. nos. 3 to 6 constructed one multistoried building at 43, Sashi Bhusan Chatterjee Lane, Bally, Howrah. Complainant’s father approached o.p. nos. 3 to 6 to purchase one flat in that building and he purchased one flat measuring 408 sq. ft. for a total consideration value of Rs. 3,60,000/-. On payment of full consideration money on 11-10-2010 by the complainant, one deed of sale was executed and registered in favour of the complainant on 04-02-2011. And the actual, physical possession of the flat was also delivered on 04-02-2011 to the complainant. It is alleged by the complainant that as she entered the flat, she was shocked after detecting that the south side corner of the ceiling of the flat had developed cracks, the inside wall including the plaster of paris was swollen, the toilet – fittings and water tap were and they are in bad condition, not functioning and operating properly. And there are certain other hardships along with the non installation of the separate electric meter in her name which was supported to be installed by the o.p. nos. 3 to 6 although they realized the cost of installation of electric meter in her name. Complainant sent one lawyer’s letter on 24-05-2011 to o.p. nos. 3 to 6 requesting them to do the needful as verbal requests did not yield any good result. O.p. nos. 3 to 6 replied that lawyer’s letter dated 24-05-2011 by their lawyer’s letter dated 06-06-2011. As o.p. no. 3 to 6 did not do anything, complainant served another lawyer’s letter dated 20-01-2012 which was also replied by o.p. nos. 3 to 6 by their letter dated 15-02-2012. As the o.p. nos. 3 to 6 did not care to remove all the above said problems even after receiving lawyer’s letter from the complainant, being aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant filed this instant petition praying for refund of Rs. 3,60,000/- being the consideration value of the flat in question or to give her another flat of same description within the area along with cost and compensation alleging deficiency in service against o.p. nos. 1 to 6.
Notices were served upon o.ps. O.p. nos. 1 & 2 never appeared nor filed written version. O.p. nos. 4 to 6, being the partners of o.p. no. 3 appeared and filed written version. Accordingly, case was heard ex parte against o.p. nos. 1 & 2.
DECISION WITH REASONS :
Complainant’s father never gave any amount to o.p. nos. 1 & 2. Accordingly, complainant or her father is not a consumer of o.p. nos. 1 & 2. Total amount of Rs. 3,60,000/- was paid to o.p. nos. 3 to 6. Accordingly, complainant, if at all be considered as a consumer, is a consumer of o.p. nos. 3 to 6. We have carefully gone through written version, affidavit in opposition filed by o.ps. no. 3 to 6 along with the documents like money receipt, possession letter and Deed of Conveyance i.e., Deed of sale dated 04-02-2011. There was an Agreement for sale between the complainant and / or her father and o.ps. on 02-06-2010 whereby o.ps. were bound to execute and, register the Deed of Sale or Deed of Conveyance in favour of complainant in terms of scheduled flat on receipt of the entire consideration value of the flat. And o.ps. had executed and registered the same in her favour on 04-02-2011. We have also gone through the possession letter dated 11-10-2010 which was accepted by the complainant’s father, Sri Bankim Chandra Dutta on behalf of his daughter. And in this case, Deed of Conveyance had been executed. In that Deed of Conveyance dated 04-02-2011, we did not find any clause giving warrantee and / or guarantee regarding the materials used in the construction of the flat. As a result, as soon as the Deed of Conveyance was executed and registered in favour of the complainant by the o.ps., the complainant ceased to be a consumer of the o.ps. Regarding installation of electric meter by o.p. nos. 3 to 6, we have carefully gone through para 4 in page no. 14 of the Deed of Sale dated 04-02-2011. Moreover, complainant’s father did not pay any charge for the same to o.p. nos. 3 to 6. In this respect, too, complainant is not all a consumer of the o.ps.
As a result, this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain the petition of the complaint. Accordingly the case is dismissed on contest against o.ps. without cost.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 36 of 2012 ( HDF 36 of 2012 ) be and the same is dismissed on contest against the o.ps. without cost.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
