SHRI SWAPAN KUMAR MAHANTY, PRESIDENT
This is an application u/s.35 of the C.P. Act, 2019.
Brief facts of the consumer complaint:-
OP is a Promoter who entered into a Development Agreement with the owner of KMC Premises No. 66, Debendra Chandra Dey Road, Kolkata -700015 for construction of a G+3 storied building after demolishing its old structure. Complainant had entered into an agreement dated 17.12.2012 with the OP/ Developer for grant of tenancy in respect of one residential flat coupled with attached bath and privy on the second floor (in front of Mosque) measuring about 250 sq.ft more or less against payment of Rs. 2,75,000/-. Complainant paid Rs. 1,78,000/- out of total consideration to the OP on different dates against money receipts. Despite payment of Rs. 1,78,000/- the OP tried to delay for delivery of possession of the subject flat and lingered the matter on different pretext. It was agreed between the parties that OP will handover possession of the subject flat to the complainant within a period of 06 months but failed to meet the commitment. Hence, a legal notice dated 09.09.2020 was duly sent to the OP. But no consequence. Finding no other way, the complainant filed the instant consumer complaint praying relief fully mentioned in the prayer.
OP was duly served of the complaint. Despite service of notice upon him, no WV is filed.
The complainant Md. Intekhab Alam has filed his evidence by way of affidavit supporting the allegations made in the complaint. We have perused the consumer complaint coupled with its annexure thereto including E/chief of the complainant.
The Complainant by way of un-corroborated testimony has proved that the OP Md. Shamim and Md. Saheb have entered into an Agreement for Booking of Flat dated 17.12.2014 with the complainant in respect of the subject flat measuring about 250 sq.ft. more or less on the second floor of the proposed building and the complainant is supposed to pay rent of Rs. One only per sq. ft. to the land lady within 10th of each month according to English Calendar. There is no specific time for delivery of possession of the subject flat.
Complainant has also stated that he has paid Rs. 1,78,000/- to the OP on different dates out of total consideration of Rs. 2,75,000/- . Complainant has further asserted that the OP has failed to handover the subject flat and being the Developer has committed deficiency in service. It is pertinent to mention here that the Agreement for Booking of Flat executed on 17.12.2014 between the complainant in one part, OP Md. Shamim and one Md. Saheb on the second part but the complainant failed to implicate the said Developer Md. Saheb as OP. The consumer complaint is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary party. This commission cannot grant any relief to the complainant in absence of Md. Saheb who is one of the Developer of the proposed building. Therefore, we have no hesitation in concluding that the consumer complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.
In view of the foregoing discussion, the complaint is dismissed ex parte against the OP without any cost.
