Date of filing    :    02.02.2018.

Decided on           :    02.04.2019.

JUDGEMENT

Bibekananda Pramanik, President – This consumer complaint under section 12 of the C.P. Act has been filed by the complainant Smt. Parul Bala Sapui against the above named O.P. Mr. Sunil Jaiswal  alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

Complainant’s case in brief is as follows :-

               The complainant and other two persons namely Madhusudan Paul and Sambhunath Paul are the respective owners of holding no. 65/B, 65/C and 65/D, Girish Ghosh Road, P.S.-Belur, District-Howrah. The O.P. is a developer by profession. The complainant and other co-owners entered into a development agreement and registered Power of Attorney with the O.P. on 21.10.2011 for development of the said properties. As per terms and condition of said development agreement the complainant is entitled to get 2(two) self contained flats measuring about 630 sq. ft. covered area on the 2nd floor as well as another flat measuring about 550 sq. ft. on the ground floor of the newly constructed building of the said properties as mentioned in the schedule of the petition of complaint. By virtue of that development agreement O.P. has almost constructed a new storied building and he has handed over allocated portion of that building to the other co-owners and he has also sold his allocated portions to the 3rd party purchaser. Unfortunately out of the 2(two) allocated flat of the complainant, the flat measuring 550 sq. ft. on the ground floor has not yet been completed and handed over to the complainant by the O.P. in spite of her repeated requests. Hence the complaint, praying for directing the O.P. to hand over full finished complete flat as specifically mentioned in the schedule of the complaint in favour of the complainant and for an order directing the O.P. to hand over original deed, sanction plan, development agreement and other relevant documents to the complainant and for an order of compensation and cost against the O.P.

               In spite of service of notice, the O.P. did not appear to contest this case. Hence the exparte hearing.

POINT FOR DECISION

            Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

            To prove her case, the complainant has tendered her written examination-in-chief supported by affidavit in evidence and she has also filed copies of relevant documents in support of her case.

            We have gone through the said evidence of the complainant and the documents filed by her and found that the complainant has fully corroborated her case of the petition of complaint in material particulars and the documents, filed by her, also support her case.  

            So, in view of the said evidence of the complainant, remaining unchallenged, we are constrained to hold that the complainant’s case is proved and she is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.

 Hence,

                      it is,

O R D E R E D

            that the Complaint Case No. 50/2018 is allowed exparte with cost against the O.P. O.P. is directed to deliver the full finished flat with all facilities and amenities as mentioned in the petition of complaint in favour of the complainant within 2(two) months from this date of order. O.P. is further directed to hand over to the complainant the original deed, sanction plan, development agreement and completion certificate and to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within 2(two) months from this date of order.

Let a plain copy of this order be given to the complainant free of cost.

Dictated and corrected by me. 

 ( Bibekananda Pramanik )                                              

         President, D.C.D.R.F., Howrah.