DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,
KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. __285_ _ OF ___2015
DATE OF FILING : 15.6.2015 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:_11.3.2019___
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Smt. Baby Das, daughter of late Krishnapada Das, of 25, Satyen Roy Road, P.S Behala, Kolkata- 34.
O.P/O.Ps : Mr. Sanjay Sharma, son of Sri laxmi Narayan Sharma, Proprietor of M/s Ganpati Builders Developer, of 32, Siddhanath Chatterjee Road (Flat no.B-2), P.S Behala, Kolkata- 34.
__________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
The facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follows.
The complainant is owner of 1/3rd share in the case land . One Development Agreement was effected in the month of December, 2011 between the complainant and her co-owners on one side and the O.P/developer on another side. The O.P developer agreed inter alia to deliver one covered space of 300 sq.ft super built up area on ground floor in the north east side (back side) of the proposed G+3 storied building in the owner’s allocation. The O.P also agreed to pay Rs.3 lac in addition to the instant complainant. The construction was to be completed within 15 months of the date of commencement of construction. Another agreement was also brought into reality on 31.1.2002 by the aforesaid parties and this agreement is nothing but confirmation and detailing of the above development agreement. The O.P/developer did not complete the construction of the building in terms of the agreement, nor did he provide the rent to the complainant as per agreement. Therefore, the complainant has prayed for passing an order ,directing the O.P to complete the construction of her building , to restrain the O.P from raising shop room on the parking space of ground floor, to deliver completion certificate , to pay monthly rent and to pay compensation etc. Hence, this case.
The O.P developer has been contesting the case by filing written statement ,wherein it is contended inter alia that the complainant forcibly occupied the site and, therefore, it is not possible for him to raise any construction upon that site. There is no deficiency in service on his part as the aforesaid site for construction was forcibly occupied by the complainant. It is further contended on behalf of the O.p/developer that there was no agreement for supplying completion certificate and, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P for not supplying the completion certificate to the complainant.
Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Is the O.P guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Both the parties have led their evidence on affidavit. Questionnaires, replies filed by the parties are also kept in the record after consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 & 2 :
On perusal of the record it becomes evident that the O.P/developer has almost completed the construction of the flat of the complainant. It also transpires in evidence that the possession of the flat has also been handed over to the complainant. It further transpires vide order no.45 dated 13.12.2018 that the rent has also been paid entirely to the complainant by the O.p/developer and now, the complainant has no dues whatsoever from the O.P/developer.
Possession letter has also been delivered to the complainant and the complainant has received the possession letter dated 51.2017 from the O.P/developer. A copy of possession letter dated 5.12017 is filed by the complainant on record. On perusal of this possession letter it is found from the endorsement of the complainant thereon that the possession of the flat has been received by the complainant , but the flat is without any existing verandah and that no paper showing regularization of the flat by the O.P has been handed over to the complainant. In the circumstances, we feel constrained to say that the flat of the complainant is not having any verandah in terms of the agreement dated 31.1.2002 and the complainant is entitled to a verandah in her flat and, therefore, the O.P/developer is duty bound to construct such a verandah . Regards being had to this aspect in particular, we do feel no hesitation to say that the flat is still in incomplete position and O.P/developer has to construct the verandah of the flat of the complainant. Non-completion of the flat of the complainant in terms of the agreement , non-delivery of completion certificate to the complainant by the O.P/developer are glaring instances of deficiency in service. The complainant is entitled to get the relief or reliefs as prayed for.
In the result, the case succeeds .
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P with a cost of Rs.10,000/- .
The O.P is directed to provide a verandah to the flat of the complainant in order to complete its construction and also to supply completion certificate within a month of this order ,failing which, the complainant is at liberty to execute this order through the instrumentality of this Forum against the O.P/developer.
No compensation whatsoever is awarded in favour of the complainant for the reason that the possession of the flat is handed over to the complainant.
Let a free plain copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
President
I / We agree
Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
