IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 24/S/2013.                          DATED : 22.09.2016.            

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SRI BISWANATH DE,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

                      MEMBER                : SMT. PTATITI BHATTACHARYYA.

COMPLAINANT                 : SMT. MINA BOSE,  

                                                 W/O Jayanta Bose,            

                                                             R/O - 1 No. Dabgram Colony, Prantik Abasan,

 P.O. – Rabindra Sarani, P.S.- Siliguri,

 PIN – 734 006, Dist.- Darjeeling (W.B.).

O.Ps.             1.                     : DIPENDRA NATH RAHA, 

  S/O Late Mahindra Nath Raha,

  R/O- Rabindra Nagar, P.O.- Siliguri,

  P.S.- Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling

2.                     : SRI VASKAR BISWAS,

  S/O Late Ajit Biswas,

  R/O- Deshbandhu Para,

  P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling (W.B.)

3.                     : SMT. GOPAL BASU,

  W/O Sri Sukanto Basu, 

  R/O- 21, Girish Ghosh Sarani, Hakimpara,

  P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling (W.B.).

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Sri K. L. Kundu, Advocate.

J U D G E M E N T

Sri Biswanath De, Ld. President.

The complainant’s case in brief is that the OPs are partners of the firm under the name and style “Frontline Developers”, and the OPs are engaged as promoters.  There was an agreement for sale dated 01.03.2010 between the complainant and the OPs for purchase of a complete flat measuring 1032 Sq. Ft. on the second floor of a multi-storied building called “Prantik Abasan”, and the complainant paid the consideration for the flat, and registration was also completed by the OPs on 17.08.2011, and the complainant took possession of the flat.  The complainant claims that she paid consideration for obtaining connection of electricity although there was no such mention in the agreement, and in spite of that she was not given proper supply of electricity, nor the

Contd…….P/2

-:2:-

consideration was returned to her.  The complainant claims that sub-standard materials were used for the building of the flat, which was against the specification mentioned in the agreement dated 01.03.2010, and her flat is hardly fit for human habitation.  The OPs have made some illegal constructions in violation of the plan of the Siliguri Municipal Corporation in the common are of the complex.  The complainant claims that she had to take a loan of Rs.1,39,000/- from State Bank of India for carrying out repair works in her flat, and accordingly, she filed this case praying that the OPs may be directed to pay her the said sum of Rs.1,39,000/-, together with some other reliefs.           

OPs appeared and contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as raised by the complainant.  OPs admit that complainant in the month March, 2010 entered into an agreement with the OPs for purchasing of a flat measuring 988 Sq. Ft. for a total consideration of a sum of Rs.9,70,000/-.  The said flat was handed over to the complainant in the year 2011 to her fullest satisfaction.  It is stated by the OPs that thereafter complainant raised allegation of substandard materials being used in the construction of the building.  The complainant thereafter, filed complaint before the Assistant Director, CA & FBP, Siliguri R.O.  After hearing both the parties, the complaint was disposed of.  It is also alleged that complainant CR Case No.523/2012 against the OPs and the said case is pending. 

It is case of the OPs that amount taken from the complainant is towards infrastructure development charges as claimed by the WBSEDCL as per prevailing norms. Accordingly, it is prayed that the case should be dismissed.     

Point for decision

1.       Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs ?

2.       Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?              

Complainant has filed the following documents :-

1.       Photocopy of THE Sale Deed dated 17.08.2011.

2.       Photocopy of the Agreement of Sale dated 1^st March, 2010.

3.       Photocopy of the office record of Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices. 

4.       Photocopy of Home Loan.

5.       Photocopy of Voter ID card of the above named complainant.

6.       Photocopy of letter given to SMC dated 03.11.2011.

7.       Photocopy of Electricity connection paper.

Contd…….P/3

-:3:-

OPs have filed the following documents :-

1.       Copies of handing over of the buildings to the land owners dated 04.08.2004, 18.05.2009 and 09.07.2013 to their full satisfaction. 

2.       Copies of three Debit Vouchers and Bank Statement.

3.       Copy of the Debit Voucher dated 17.08.2011.

4.       Copy of the written submission by us before the Ld. Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices.

5.       Copy of the summons of C.R. Case No.523 of 2012. 

Complainant has filed examination-in-chief by affidavit.

Complainant has filed written notes of Argument.

OPs have filed evidence-in-chief. 

OPs have filed written notes of Argument.

Decision with reason.

          All the issues are taken up together for the brevity and convenience of discussion.

We have heard the argument of both sides.  We have carefully gone through the complaint and written version and other relevant documents.  It is admitted fact that the complainant made agreement with the OPs to purchase flat at the price stated by the complainant and admitted by the OPs.  It is also admitted that complainant got the possession of the flat and there had been some defects in the construction.  The complainant approached before the Assistant Director, Consumer Affair & Fair Business Practices, Siliguri R.O. for resolving the dispute by mediation.  Ld advocate of the OPs submitted written answer before the Assistant Director, CA & FBP, Siliguri R.O., where the OPs expressed their desire to refund the amount paid by the complainant, along with reasonable rate of interest.  Complainant has filed one document Sl. No.7 showing that OP/Developer paid Rs.76,737/- on 17.08.2011 with a note “compromise made against damaged flooring” signed by Mina Bose, complainant and Frontline Developer.  So, this document which has been filed by the complainant issued by the OPs shows that there was damaged flooring for which compromise has been made.

It also appears from the order of the Assistant Director, Consumer Affair & Fair Business Practices that “regarding repairing of the flat the counsel informed the representative of the complainant that the OP will take necessary action for repairing by one month”.  This copy of order has been filed by the

Contd…….P/4

-:4:-

complainant.  The order also shows that the OP denied to refund the amount paid for Electricity connection. 

So, from the above admitted facts of both sides, it is crystal clear that the complainant has approached before this Forum with allegation of bad flooring and allegation against electricity connection.

Accordingly, repairing work was essential and complainant has done that repairing work.  OP has duty to repair the said flat, but the OP did not to that, in spite of promising repairing work before the Assistant Director, CA & FBP.

So, after a deep deliberation over the materials on record and admission and act of the OPs, it is air like clear that there is merit in the allegation of the complainant and the same is proved by oral and documentary evidence. 

Accordingly, the case succeeds.

Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.          

In the result, the case succeeds.

Hence, it is

                     O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.24/S/2013 is allowed on contest against the OP Nos.1, 2 & 3/all partners of the partnership firm “FRONTLINE DEVELOPERS”. 

The complainant is entitled to get Rs.1,39,000/- which the complainant had suffered a loss from the OP Nos.1, 2 & 3/all partners of the partnership firm “FRONTLINE DEVELOPERS”.

The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.12,338/- for the electric connection from the OP Nos.1, 2 & 3/all partners of the partnership firm “FRONTLINE DEVELOPERS”.

The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental torture, harassment from the OP Nos.1, 2 & 3/all partners of the partnership firm “FRONTLINE DEVELOPERS”.

The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost from the OP Nos.1, 2 & 3/all partners of the partnership firm “FRONTLINE DEVELOPERS”.

The OP Nos.1, 2 & 3/all partners of the partnership firm “FRONTLINE DEVELOPERS”, who are jointly and severally liable, are directed to  Rs.1,39,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant within 45 days of this order.

Contd…….P/5

-:5:-

The OP Nos.1, 2 & 3/all partners of the partnership firm “FRONTLINE DEVELOPERS”, who are jointly and severally liable, are further directed to pay Rs.12,338/- for electric connection by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant within 45 days of this order.

The OP Nos.1, 2 & 3/all partners of the partnership firm “FRONTLINE DEVELOPERS”, who are jointly and severally liable, are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant as compensation for mental torture and harassment, within 45 days of this order.

The OP Nos.1, 2 & 3/all partners of the partnership firm “FRONTLINE DEVELOPERS”, who are jointly and severally liable, are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant towards litigation cost, within 45 days of this order.

In case of default of payment, the complainant is entitled to get interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded sum of Rs.1,61,338/- from the date of filing of this case till full realization. 

In case of default, the complainant is at liberty to execute this order through this Forum as per law. 

Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.

 -Member-                         -Member-                          -President-