No. 4/23.09.2009.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

Mr. Bodhisatta Dutta, the Ld. Advocate argued in support of the appeal and the Respondent appeared in person and argued his case.

Appeal was filed against order dated 12.06.2009 passed by the D.C.D.R.F., North 24 Pgs. in CC Case No. 257 of 08 whereby complaint was allowed giving direction for execution of the Deed of Conveyance, for issuance of Completion Certificate and cost of Rs. 1,000/- against O.P. in favour of the Complainant.  Facts as appeared from the complaint are that under an Agreement for sale between the parties the flat measuring 421 sq. ft. super built up area for Rs. 2,75,000/- was entered into.  The Complainant paid a total sum of Rs. 2,65,000/- out of the total consideration.  The delivery of possession was decided with a promise that unfinished portion would be completed by the O.Ps.  After the belongings of the Complainant were kept in the flat another lock was put on behalf of the O.P. on the collapsible gate.  The Complainant lodged a complaint with the local police station against the denial of his entry in the flat.  Ultimately complaint was filed before the Forum seeking appropriate relief.

At the time of hearing of the appeal the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant contended that the Complainant has failed to pay the full consideration as Rs. 10,000/- is still due.  Moreover, it is contended that the Complainant was required to pay further amounts for certain improvement in the flat as noted in the reverse of the Receipt dated 10.09.2007 and reverse of the Receipt dated 29.01.2008.

Mr. Ghosh, the Complainant of the Respondent appearing in person denied the said liability and also contended that as he had to spend more than Rs. 10,000/-, for making up unfinished job of the O.P., he is not required to pay balance Rs. 10,000/- from the consideration amount.

Considering the respective contention we find that the cost incurred by the Complainant for completing unfinished job of the O.P. has been considered by the Forum in the impugned judgement and it has been found that more than Rs. 10,000/- has been spent by the Complainant.  The Appellant – O.P. could not contradict the same effectively producing any acceptable material. 

With regard to the further claims for improvement of the flat, the reverse of the Receipt dated 10.09.2007 merely mentioned certain particulars without indicating any fresh agreement by the Complainant undertaking any further cost.  The reverse of the Receipt dated 29.01.2008 merely acknowledges Agreement by the Complainant to pay excess arrear payment as per agreement value and site plan.  As no material has been shown by the Appellant before us that any excess area has been handed over to the Complainant, the payment undertaken for excess area does not require any consideration by us.

In above view of the findings as the contention of the Appellant are found not acceptable and no other contention has been made by the Appellant apart from the contention indicated hereinabove, we feel that the appeal should be dismissed.  But as there is no merit the appeal is being dismissed with cost.  Accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the Appellant is directed to pay cost of Rs. 2,000/-.