| Complaint Case No. CC/106/2018 | | ( Date of Filing : 05 Oct 2018 ) |
| | | | 1. UTPAL BARMAN,S/O LATE JIBAN BARMAN | | SURYASEN PALLY,P.O-KADAMTALA,P.S.-MATIGARA,DIST-DARJEELING. |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. D.P.N.BUILDERS,A PARTNERSHIP FIRM | | AT SURYASEN PALLY,SHIVMANDIR,P.O-KADAMTALA,P.S.-MATIGARA,DIST-DARJEELING. | | 2. SRI DULAL GHOSH,S/O LATE KALIPADA GHOSH | | OFFICE AT SURYASEN PALLY,SHIVMANDIR,P.O-KADAMTALA,P.S.-MATIGARA,DIST-DARJEELING. | | 3. 3. SRI PHANI BHUSAN BASAK,S/O LATE PHATICK CH.BASAK | | OFFICEAT SURYASEN PALLY,SHIVMANDIR,P.O-KADAMTALA,P.S.-MATIGARA,DIST-DARJEELING. | | 4. SRI NAVIN GHOSH,S/O NIMAL CH. GHOSH | | OFFICEAT SURYASEN PALLY,SHIVMANDIR,P.O-KADAMTALA,P.S.-MATIGARA,DIST-DARJEELING. | | 5. SRI PARTHA SARATHI MITRA,S/O BIRESH CH. MITRA | | OFFICEAT SURYASEN PALLY,SHIVMANDIR,P.O-KADAMTALA,P.S.-MATIGARA,DIST-DARJEELING. | | 6. SMT. ANITA SARKAR, W/O LATE MADHUSUDHAN SARKAR, | | LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE MADHU SUDHAN SARKAR,R/O HIMACHAM SARANI, BY LANE-II,HAIDERPARA,HOUSE NO.23/26,P.O-HAIDERPARA, P.S.BHAKTINAGAR, DIST-JALPAIGURI. | | 7. SRI MAHITOSH SARKAR,S/O LATE MADHUSUDHAN SARKAR, | | LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE MADHU SUDHAN SARKAR,R/O HIMACHAM SARANI, BY LANE-II,HAIDERPARA,HOUSE NO.23/26,P.O-HAIDERPARA, P.S.BHAKTINAGAR, DIST-JALPAIGURI. | | 8. SMT. SUJATA SARKAR(SEN),W/O DEBABRATA SEN,D/O LATE MADHUSUDHAN SARKAR, | | LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE MADHU SUDHAN SARKAR,R/O HIMACHAM SARANI, BY LANE-II,HAIDERPARA,HOUSE NO.23/26,P.O-HAIDERPARA, P.S.BHAKTINAGAR, DIST-JALPAIGURI. | | 9. GOPAL SARKAR,S/O LATE MADHU SUDHAN SARKAR | | LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE MADHU SUDHAN SARKAR,R/O HIMACHAM SARANI, BY LANE-II,HAIDERPARA,HOUSE NO.23/26,P.O-HAIDERPARA, P.S.BHAKTINAGAR, DIST-JALPAIGURI. |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| Final Order / Judgement | To-day is fixed for admission hearing. Ld. Advocate for the complainant files hazira. Heard the Ld lawyer. Perused the complaint and the documents thereto. The case of the complainant is, in brief, that he purchased one residential flat in “Gobinda Residency” form the OPs at the cost of Rs. 19,36,540/- by dint of an Agreement of Sale dtd. 11.03.2014 followed by a Deed of Conveyance dtd. 19.11.2014. But the OPs delivered the flat without measuring the actual space, did not meet up certain standards, did not fulfil some of the agreed facilities and with some major defects. On repeated approach, the OPs assured the complainant to rectify the defects and inadequacies but did not keep the assurance. Hence is the case. The complainant has not attached copy of any letter requesting the OPs for fulfilling inadequacies, nor has enclosed copy of any reply refusing such rectification or any assurance given, by the OPs as stated in Para-16. As stated, the last payment of Rs. 3,85,000/- by the complainant, on taking loan from LIC, was made on 02.06.2015. However, continuance of repayment of loan by the complainant to the LIC concerns nohow the OPs which is why LIC could not be made a party to the case. There is no documentary evidence in support of the OPs’ refusing in February 2018 to rectify the defects as stated in Para 24 of the complaint. Therefore, the complaint filed on 05.10.2018 is hit by limitation as prescribed under section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Moreover, the value of flat and compensation etc. claimed exceed the pecuniary ambit of the Forum as prescribed under section 11(1) of the Act without taking the cost of repair into account in pursuance, however, of a decision dtd. 07.10.2016 of the Hon’ble National Commission in Consumer Case No. 97 of 2016 in the case of Ambrish Kr. Shukla and 21 others Vs Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. as cited by the Ld counsel of the complainant. Hence the case is not admitted. | |
