DATE OF FILING                    :     03.03.2014.

DATE OF S/R                            :      27.03.2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     06.01.2015.

Sri Shiba Prasad Chakraborty,

son of late Sadhan Parasd  Chakraborty,

residing at Royal Jyoti Residency flat no. B 4,

68, Subinoy Ghosh Sarani Dharsa, P.O.  G.I.P. Colony, P.S. Jagacha,

District Howrah………………………………………………….. COMPLAINANT.

• Versus -

   

  Laser Elevator Private Ltd.,

  a  Private Ltd. Company having its registered  office

  at 151A, Jodhpur Gardens,

  Kolkata 7000 45

  and 74 B Dr. Suresh Chandra Banerjee Road

  Kolkata 700090. ……….…………………….……………………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. Complainant, Shiba Prasad Chakraborty,by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. to continue the annual maintenance of lift service after receiving annual maintenance charge , to return the original licence, to pay compensation amounting Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant along with other relief or reliefs as theForum may deem fit and proper.

   

• 2. Brief fact of the case is that complainant is a co-owner and resident in the building premises, namely,Royal Jyoti Residency, situated at 68, Subinoy Ghosh Sarani, P.O. G.I.P. Colony, under P.S. Jagacha. O.p. is the organization who maintains the passenger lift installed in the said building on receipt of agreed amount as maintenance charges from the building society.The agreement is valid since March, 2012 to February, 2015 vide Annexure ‘B’ dated 03.02.2012. But that lift went out of order on and from 24.04.2013 and remained idle for 167 days and as per order no. 10 dated 27.9.2013 passed by this Forum, o.p. restored the lift service. Thereafter by their letter dated 04.11.2013 vide Annexure ‘C o.p. informed the Secretary of the said building that they would not receive any further amount towards A.M.C. and want to discontinue their service. Now, it is also argued by the complainant that as the agreement dated 03.2.2012 was entered into by and between the parties for three years, o.p. cannot terminate that agreement unilaterally. So, by not giving service to the lift o.p. is deficient in providing service to the complainant. He sent a letter to the o.p. on 24.01.2014 requesting o.p. to continue with the service but o.p. vide its lawyer’s letter dated 19.02.2014 informed him that they are not at all willing to provide any service towards maintenance. Being aggrieved and finding no other alternative, complainant filed this instant case praying for the aforesaid relief.

   

• 3. Notice was served. O.P. appeared and filed written version. Accordingly, case heard on contest.

   

  4.      Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  ?

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

    

   DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

   5. Both the points aretaken up together for consideration. O.P. has specifically stated that the service was provided perfectly upto March, 2013 for the period they took maintenance charge vide Annexure bill dated 13.3.2012 where it is written that charges of Rs. 11,000/- was taken by o.p. from March, 2012 to February, 2013. Thereafter a case was filed by the complainant and it was settled by the order passed by this  Forum. Subsequently, vide letter dated 04.11.2013, o.p. informed that they do not want to continue with the agreement dated 03.2.2012 and did not receive any amount towards annual maintenance. So, after the expiry of the 1^st year, o.p. did not receive any amount either from the complainant or from any other flat owner  of the said building. O.p. also delivered original licence to work a lift in Form ‘C’ provided by ‘Directorate of Electricity’ to one of the flat owners, namely, Pravash Chandra Mandal on 27.8.2012 vide Annexure ‘Form C’ is attached by them. As o.p. has not received any amount except for the period March, 2012 to February, 2013, o.p. is no way liable and responsible to provide any lift service to either the complainant or the inhabitants of the building in question.      Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 111 of 2014 ( HDF 111  of 2014 )  be  dismissed  on contest without  costs  against  the O.Ps. 

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

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

      (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                  

  Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.