By :  SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT

           The case of the petitioners in brief is that they along with other members of their family leave in a flat purchased by them in the year 2008. But  only after 8 -10 months they had to raise allegation in the office of the Consumer Affairs, Purba Medinipur against the erstwhile proprietor of the flat Sri Dilip  Kumar Seth  as the said Dilip Kumar Seth did not compete some job under the contract of sale and  also for deficiency of different services. Such as, Sri Seth promised to construct a scooter shed, to plaster the outer wall of the flat, promised to construct shed on the stair case roof and also gave them permission to use roof of all the three flats. But he did not do so. Lastly the Seth permitted one person as tenant to use the 2^nd floor of the flat who had no valid deed or authority to use that flat. The said tenant also had a pet dog who used to loiter freely in the stair case and started to litter here and there - everywhere. The said tenant damaged the bamboo/iron stand for drying the cloths of the complainants. Sri Seth constructed a little shed over the roof for living and breeding of the dog and that person started to deal in kids. In spite of repeated requests, said obnoxious deed of the said tenant as well as sponsoring by the OP, life and safety of the complainants were completely obliterated. The complainants also alleged that as per contract one third of the repairing cost of water pipe line and pump had to bear by the OP but he did not share that cost, he did not clean the drains nor maintains clarity of all the common passages. He did not take responsibility to lock the key of the main gate of the flat and many other difficulties were created by the OP. Many times the complainants knocked the door of the Consumer Affairs Department and got some services but the OP did not perform his part as per instruction of the ld. AD of Consumer Affairs.

            Under such a tremendous mental agony and ill feelings, the complainants have filed this complaint against the OP with prayers as mentioned therein on the allegation of gross deficiency of service on the part of the OP.

            The OP   contested the case by filing written version and WNA.

             The specific case of the OP  is that total three  families life in the said flat including the complainants. One Debi Nath wife of Chandi Nath lives at the ground floor, Mithu Bhunia wife of Kartick Bhunia lives at the 2^nd floor and the complainants  lives at the first floor. The OP resides elsewhere but not in the flat in dispute.  The OP admits that various times the complainants  lodged complaint against him in the office of the AD of Consumer Affairs and he has complied the directions of the said Authority every time. So, he had no deficiency of service and he claims dismissal of the complaint case.

            The OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

 On the basis of the pleadings of all the parties above the following issues required to be considered (1) whether the complaint is maintainable and whether the complainants are entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.

DECISION WITH REASONS.

            We have carefully gone through the complaint, written version and all the documents filed by the respective parties and heard the ld. Advocates for both the parties very carefully and have applied out anxious thought over the matter.

            Admittedly the complainant purchased the flat mentioned in the complaint petition from the OP and the same deed has been registered in the year 2008 and the complainants took possession of the flat. The complainants have alleged that the OP left incomplete some works in the flat before they came into possession of the same. OP also does not maintain the surrounding environment of the house and also some important amenities which the complainants are entitled to get according to the agreement for sale.  It is also admitted the complainant appeared before the ld. AD of Consumer Affairs Department, Purba Medinipur and the OP appeared in the hearing before the Ld. A.D of Consumer Affairs .It appears from the Annexure XIV filed by the complainants that on the first mediation i.e on 21.02.2017 the OP was present and in presence of the ld. AD of Consumer Affairs he assured to fulfil the grievances  of the complainant which has been recorded in the Annexure XIV. The petition was disposed of amicably before the ld. AD of Consumer Affairs but the OP did not act as per his assurance. Hence, the complainant has filed this case before this DCDRF.

            In para 6(iii)of his written version the OP stated  that one Debi Nath wife of Chandi Nath lives at the ground floor, Mithu Bhunia wife of Kartick Bhunia lives at the 2^nd floor and the complainants lives at the first floor. The OP resides elsewhere but not in the flat in dispute, so he has no liability to maintain the said flat. Every family uses separate electric meter for consumption of electricity at their respective portion and arrangement of water is also there in the flat. OP has stated that OP has complied the order of the Ld.AD of Consumer Affairs Department after that petition has been disposed of. The OP alleges that this complaint has been filed only to harass him.

            It appears that the complainant took possession of the flat in the year 2008. Already nine years have been passed and they are in possession. The complainants have not taken any commission for local inspection of the flat to show before this Forum about the condition of the flat and the discomfiture faced by them in residing in the flat. But complainant in person argued that this is not necessary as because in the mediation sitting the OP had agreed that the grievance of the complainant would be resolved as per assurance before the Ld.AD of Consumer Affairs Department. When there is nothing on record to show that the OP has already complied the order of the Ld.AD of Consumer Affairs Department and made the complainants’ environment comfortable to live then, prima facie, it appears that the OP has not complied the order of the Ld.AD of Consumer Affairs Department and now he should comply the same.

            The complainant has prayed for return of Rs. 2,60,000/- and to pay Rs. 1.70,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service and Rs. 70,000/- as litigation costs. But we are at a loss to appreciate as to what is the basis of her such prayer.  If the complainant. If the complainant is agreeable to complete the flat by repairing of the pipes, etc then the OP will be liable to pay the expenses of the same in terms of the agreement for sale.

            Hence,  it is

                                                              ORDERED

            That the CC No. 316  of 2017 be and the same is allowed in part against the OP. 

            There will be no order as to compensation of costs.

           The OP is directed to complete the repairing job as per contract for sale and provide  other amenities by removing all the nuisances from the surroundings of  the flat within one month from the date of this order. In default, the OP will pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and also litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/-  to the complainant.

            The complainant is given liberty to put this order into execution if the OP fails to comply  the order as aforesaid within time.

            Let copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.