View 1789 Cases Against Real Estate
Sri Ananda Kundu filed a consumer case on 08 Feb 2024 against Darakeswar Real Estate Co. Pvt. Ltd. in the Bankura Consumer Court. The case no is CC/91/2016 and the judgment uploaded on 20 Feb 2024.
IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANKURA
Consumer Complaint No. 91/2016
Date of Filing: 22/12/2016
Before:
1. Samiran Dutta Ld. President.
2. Siddhartha Sankar Bhui Ld. Member.
For the Complainant: Ld. Advocate Tapan De / Ld. Advocate Prabir Banerjee
For the O.P.: None
Complainant
1.Ananda Kundu, s/o Late Shashadhar Kundu
2.Sri Tapan Ghosh, s/o Sri Madan Mohan Ghosh
3.Sri Prasenjit Dutta, s/o Amiya Dutta and 3(a)Mrs. Ipsita Dutta, w/o Sri Prasenjit Dutta
4.Sri Sudipta Kundu, s/o Late Haripada Kundu
5.Sri Bibek Bramhachari, s/o Sri Tarapada Bramhachari
6.Sri Basudeb Dasmodak, s/o Late Ganesh Dasmodak 6(a)Sri Abhik Dasmodak, s/o Basudev Dasmodak
7.Sri Susovan Kundu, s/o Sri Tarapada Kundu 7(a)Mrs. Pampa Kundu, w/o Sri Susovan Kundu
8.Dr. Debdulal Mandal, s/o Sri Kshudiram Mandal 8(a) Mrs. Mousumi Mandal, w/o Dr. Debdulal Mandal
9 .Sri Mantu Kundu, s/o Late Kalipada Kundu
All are resident of Ashiana Apartment, 2nd Feeder Road, Lalbazar, Bankura
Opposite Party
1. Darakeswar Real Estate Co. Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office at Bhairabstan More, Kenduadihi, Bankura
1.(A)Sougat Kundu, Director of Darakeswar Real Estate Co. Pvt. Ltd., s/o Late Mahadeb Kundu at Lokepur, Kenduadihi, Bankura
1(B)Soumitra Singh, Director of Darakeswar Real Estate Co. Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office at Bhairabstan More, Kenduadihi, Bankura
1(C)Tanmoy Kundu, Director of Darakeswar Real Estate Co. Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office at Bhairabstan More, Kenduadihi, Bankura
FINAL ORDER / JUDGEMENT
Order No.43
Dated: 08-02-2024
The Complainants file hazira through Advocate.
No step is taken by the O.P.s
The case is fixed for Ex-parte hearing.
The Complainants’ case is that they separately entered into agreement for sale of their respective flat in g+4 Housing Complex known as Ashiana during the Year-2014 with O.P./Builders and got their respective flats registered by Deed of Conveyance during 2015-16 and have been in possession thereof as flat owners. But the O.P./Builders did not fulfill their obligations and common services as per agreement for sale such as no garden or children playing area, no building drainage, no lightening arrestor, no campus lightening and no fire fighting system and also intercom facilities fully described in Para 19 of the petition of complaint and the Complainants are facing great difficulty and inconvenience in the enjoyment of residential flats in absence of those common facilities and services. O.P./Builders have deliberately failed to provide all those common services as per agreement for sale in spite several representations. The Complainants have therefore approached this Commission for appropriate relief.
Contd…..p/2
Page: 2
Despite service of Notice none of the O.P.s have appeared before this Commission and filed any written version to contest the case.
The Commission has gone through the petition of complaint and the written argument of Complainants and the relevant agreement for sale and the Deed of Conveyance and on perusal of the same the Commission finds that there is clear provision of all the above mentioned services and facilities in the Fourth Schedule of respective agreement for sale and also in the Fourth Schedule of respective Deed of Conveyance of the Flat owners.
It is the duty of the O.P./Builders to fulfill their obligations to provide all the requisite common services as per agreement for sale as laid down in Section 11 (4)(a) & Section 14(3) of Real Estate ( Regulation and Development Act, 2016). Non-fulfillment and non-discharge of the obligation of the O.P./Builders with regard to the common services and facilities of the flat owners as per agreement for sale and Deed of Conveyance amounts to deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act and as such the O.P./Builders are bound to provide common services and facilities as per agreement for sale as stated above at their own cost and expenses otherwise they have to bear compensation to the respective Flat Owners/Complainants to the tune of Rs.2 Lakh each.
Hence it is ordered……..
That the case is allowed Ex-parte against the O.P.s but without cost.
O.P.s are jointly and severally directed to provide common services and facilities to the respective Flat Owners / Complainants as described above at their own cost and expenses within three months from this date in default they have to pay compensation to the Flat Owners / Complainants Rs.2 Lakh each which will be utilized for fulfillment/completion of undone common services and facilities as above and liberty is given to the Complainants to nominate any of them to carry out this order and the O.P.s are to pay the entire compensation money to such nominated person(s) to be conveyed accordingly.
Both parties be supplied copy of this Judgement free of cost.
____________________ _________________
HON’BLE PRESIDENT HON’BLE MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.