1. This complaint is filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 alleging deficiency in services as well as unfair trade practice against the OPs as they did not bother to take any step to handover the owner’s allocation to the complainant and to provide completion certificate to the complainant till filing of the petition.
2. The brief fact of the case of the Complainant is that the OP1 and OP2 are the developers and the OP 3 , OP4, OP5 (represented by OP6 being minor) and OP6 and OP7 (added up as per amended complaint) alongwith the complainant are the land owners at the suit property at CS Khatian no 896, RS Khatian No. 901 (revised RS kh. no 1052/1, CS Dag no 5040, RS dag no 3047) at Mouja- Krishnapur, JL no 17, RS no 180, Touzi no 228/229 under PS : Baguiati within Ward no 32 of Rajarhat Gopalpur Municipality of 24 Parganas (North). As per agreement for development dated 26.06.2013 between the developers and the land owners and Regd. Power attorney dated 27.06.2013 executed by OP3, 4, 5 and 6 in favour of OP1 and 2 registered at Addl. Sub registrar, Rajarhat WB, the plot was to be developed  into a multi-storied building. As per terms and conditions of the said development agreement dated 26.06.2013, the complainant alongwith other co-landowners are entitled to get 2 no. of furnished floors in the said multi storied building at the ground floor and 2^nd. floor and another Rs. 1,50,000/- as owner’s allocation in lieu of her share, the balance being developer’s allocation. There was stipulation in the said agreement dated 26.06.2013 that the possession of the said flat would be handed over within 18 months from the date of agreement (within 26.12.2014) which I case gets extended under any compulsion or force majeure condition, but not beyond another 6 months (within 26.06.2015) . But even then, the developers failed to hand over the petitioner , the respective owner’s allocation and the completion certificate and the possession within the stipulated time or till filing the complaint petition. As per one of the conditions of the said development agreement, the developer is to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000  /- per month but not exceeding 6 months beyond the stipulated date of hand over. The developers failed to keep their promise by giving peaceful and vacant possession in terms of the said development agreement as well as completion certificate or vacant possession. Hence the Complainant has filed this case against the OPs as the legal notice dated 14.06.2019 did not yield any positive result.
3. The case was contested by all the OPs and written versions were filed. During adjudication, the original complainant passed away on 26.06.2020 and the Ld. Advocate of the original complainant took steps for substitution by her legal heirs through Affidavits and for filing amended complaint by adding up OPs. The OPs refrained to file any questionnaire on the evidence of complainant but appeared at the stage of final argument.
4. The Complainant filed prayer for direction on OP1 and OP2 for handing over the possession of the flat / owner’s allocation, completion of pending work, possession letter, compensation for delay @ 5000/- per month beyond the scheduled date with interest and other costs.

5. The sole point which needs to be decided in this case is whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought for.
6. The Complainant filed amended complaint petition as legal heir, evidence on affidavit, BNA, copy of registered deed of conveyance of land, general power of attorney, property tax document from local panchayat, development agreement with developer dated 26.06.2013, copy of Lawyer’s notice etc. in support of her case. None of those document has sustained any challenge at the hands of the OPs on any ground whatsoever except plain denial about the claims of complainant. Therefore, those unchallenged documents turn out to be reliable and acceptable ones. After placing reliance upon the copy of agreement and Lawyer’s notice, it is found that it is an admitted fact that the suit property was not handed over to the complainant within the stipulated time. As per W/V filed by the landowners i.e. OP3, OP5 and OPs, they expressed solidarity with claims of the complainant as much as stated about having no objection to the claims of the complainant. The OP4, another landowner, during filing W/V, denied allegations of complainant but did not contest the contentions of the complainant regarding claims on suit property. It is abundantly clear from the records and documents that as per the development agreement the complainant is entitled for owner’s allocation. The rebuttal as mentioned by OPs in their respective W/V and BNA are simple denials which have not been contested with any cogent reasoning by the OP1 and OP2. Have they got anything to submit against the claims raised by the complainant, they would have substantiated the same during evidences. Such being the position about those unchallenged documents, it clearly depicts that there were deficiencies in providing services by the OPs in respect of the petitioner. Therefore, the OP should be put under order for necessary reliefs to the complainant.

Hence it is ordered that :

The OP1 and OP2, jointly and severally, are directed to handover vacant and physical possession of the owner’s allocation in favour of the complainant as per development agreement within 45 days from the date of passing of this Judgement in default of which the Complainant will be at liberty to put the entire order/decree in execution as per provisions of law.

Let a plain copy of this Judgement be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR.

Dictated and Corrected by

[HON'BLE MR. Partha Kumar Basu]
MEMBER