DATE OF FILING                    :     03-01-2013.

DATE OF S/R                            :      19-03-2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     30-06-2014.

Sri Batakrishna Adak,

son of late Rampada Adak,

residing at Jagacha, P.O. G.I.P. Colony,

P.S. Jagacha, District – Howrah,

represented by his constituted attorney

Sri Soumen Mahajan,

son of late Sadhan  Chandra mahajan of

24, Brojonath Lahiri Lan, P.s. Chatterjeehat,

District – Howrah,

PIN – 711104.-------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.      J.M.  Construciton,

represented by its partners –

i)                    Jayanta Munshi,

son of Sri Noni  Gopal Munshi

of Jagacha ( behind Axis Bank ATM ( Counter ),

P.O.  GIP  Colony,  P.S. Jagacha,

District – Howrah,

PIN  – 711112.

ii)                  Monoj Biswas,

son of Sri Sushil Kr. Biswas,

of Bankra Ghosh Para, P.S. Domjur,

District – Howrah,

PIN – 711403.---------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.               The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has  prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to handover 40% of the total constructed area of the suit property i.e., owners’ allocation as per deed of agreement and to pay Rs. 16 lakhs as compensation for harassment and financial loss and Rs. 1 lakh as litigation costs as the o.ps. in violation of the deed of agreement did not keep the promise to complete the construction work within 15 months from the date of development agreement.

2.               The o.ps. in their  written version contended interalia that the o.ps. paid security deposit to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the complainant as per development agreement and constructed G+2 storied building within stipulated period but he complainant did not take his 40% share of allocation as he is staying in Mumbai.   

3.                  POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION   :

i)     Whether this Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint ?

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

4.               After hearing the ld. Lawyers of both sides and going through the documents and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the instant complaint is not maintainable before this  Forum as the value of the 40% share of the complainant as assessed by Howrah Municipal  Corporation amounts to  Rs. 26,55,800/-, if we put the compensation amount as prayed for i.e.,  Rs. 16 lakhs and litigation costs of Rs. 1 lakh we get an aggregate of  Rs. 43,55,800/- ( Rs. 26,55,800+16,00,000+ 1,00,000/-) which is beyond the pecuniary limit of this  Forum.    

5.               Therefore, ex facie this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum as it is beyond its pecuniary scope. We are not disposing the complaint on merit.  The point is accordingly disposed of.         

      Hence,                             

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 61 of 2014 ( HDF 61 of 2014 )  be  and the same is dismissed on contest not being maintainable.  

      No order as to costs.

      The complainant is  at liberty to prefer the appropriate Forum for relief.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (    T.K. Bhattacharya  )                                              

  President,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.