Hon’ble Mrs. Soma Bhattacharjee, Member
This is a case U/s17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying for execution of Deed of Conveyance at the cost of the Developer valued at Rs.20,70,500/-.
The complaint case in brief being that the Complainant Sri Ashis Sengupta was the tenant occupying a portion at the premises No.27, Prince Rahimuddin Lane, Kolkata-700 033, Charumarket P.S.
The Opposite Party Nos.1 Mark Construction is a partnership firm 2 & 3 are Developers and Opposite Party No.4 to 14 are the owners of the property.
The owners decided to develop the abovementioned property. There was an Agreement between the Developer and the Owner for developing the property.
There is a MOU between the Complainant and the Developer being Opposite Party Nos.1, 2 & 3. The original complainant Ashis Sengupta expired and was substituted by his legal heirs Manjula Sengupa (wife) and daughters Suchandra Sengupta and Sudeshna Sengupta.
As per terms and conditions of the said Agreement i.e. MOU dated 03-12-2006 Developer delivered the physical position of the flat having area of 505 sq. ft. super built up area out of which one flat is on the 1st Floor (North Western side) vide Flat No.F/5, specified for the occupier in the building Premises No.27 Prince Rahimuddin Lane, Now Police Station-Charumarket, Kolkata-700 033, Ward No.89, District-24 Parganas (South) as the Developer’s allocation in favour of Shri Ashis Kumar Sengupta, Complainant with full satisfaction dated 15-01-2019.
As the per the MOU, the Deed of Conveyance in respect of the flat will be executed and registered within a year, at the cost of the Developers, without consideration.
Developer delivered the flat in question to the Complainant but did not execute any Deed of Conveyance. So the Complainant filed the instant case.
The Complainant submitted that his complaint be treated as evidence by way of affidavit. The OPs were served notices but they neither appeared nor filed W.V and the case proceeded ex parte against the OPs. The complainant has filed some documents in support of his case. The Complainant files some documents in support of his case:
i) The MOU dated 15-01-2009 executed between the Developer and the Complainant.
ii) The document regarding Govt. valuation of the flat.
Before filing the case the Complainant served a notice upon Opposite Parties dated 01-11-2019, but in spite of receiving the same the Opposite Parties did not do the needful.
On perusal and consideration of the documentary evidence adduced by the Complainant(s) we are of the view that the Complainant(s) has proved the case and are entitled to relief as prayed for. The Opposite Parties have failed to deliver services as per agreement / MOU signed with the complainant.
The CC/1047/2019 succeeds and is allowed ex parte.
(i)The Opposite Parties nos. 1, 2 and 3 are directed to execute and register the scheduled flat at the cost of the OP nos. 1 to 3 within 60 days of this order.
(ii) To handover completion certificate to the complainant within 60 days of this order.
CC/1047/2019 is disposed of being allowed ex parte.
If the Opposite Parties do not comply with this order within the stipulted date, the complainants are at at liberty to put the order into execution.
Free plain copies to be given to the all parties.
