Dated : 30 Jan 2023

 MR. AYAN SINHA    MEMBER

            This is a complaint u/s 35 of the CP Act 2019 made by Jaya Singh alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the OP, A. B. UDYOG, a proprietorship firm, represented by its sole proprietor Sri. Chandan Lodh and accordingly prays for a direction upon the OP to issue possession letter, to handover completion certificate, to complete the unfinished work and provide GST Bill for the said flat, to refund of excess amount paid for transformer and return electric meter installation form along with compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.25,000/-.

FACTS IN BRIEF

The Complainant with an intention to purchase one flat of 780 sq. ft. more or less, Flat No.A, on the Third Floor North East side of the multi-storied building “RAY VILLA” at 244, Bhattacharjee Para, Vivekananda Road, Bye Lane, P.S. – New Barrackpore, Dist: - 24 Pgs (N), had entered into an agreement for sale on 04.01.2020 with the OP for a total consideration of Rs.16,38,000/-. The deed of conveyance of the said flat was executed and registered on 07.12.2020 upon the insistence of the OP, when the flat in question was almost about to complete. Accordingly full consideration money along with 1% GST of Rs.16,380/- was paid to OP, to which money receipts were issued to the complaint.

            It was agreed by the parties that the cost for installation of transformer was to be divided within 16 units including the landowners, but the OP has divided the said cost amongst 15 units. After the execution of deed of conveyance, Complainant obtained a new electric meter form from WBSEDCL and after filling up the same, handed over to the OP for his consent, but she could not bring the new electric meter connection in her name since the OP neglected and failed to return the said form.

            It is also alleged that some incomplete works at the balcony of the flat in dispute, have not been completed by the OP even after assurances were given to the Complainant, neither the possession of the flat, nor the completion certificate of the said building were handed over to the Complainant.

            The Complainant, thereafter sent a legal notice on 23.12.2021 with all the allegations mentioned above to which OP replied through letter dt. 13.01.2022.

            It is also stated by the Complainant that she had mortgaged her flat with LIC Housing Finance Ltd. For which she is regularly paying EMI to LICHFL as such could not able to enjoy  her flat.

            Thus, Complainant filed this case before this Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the OP.

Notices were served upon the OP. OP contested this case by filing written version under caption “written objection” stating, inter alia, denying all the allegations made against them except admitting that they were in receipt of the full consideration amount along with 1% GST for the said flat. As stated in their written version, the Electricity Department sent quotation dated 28.12.2020 for 15 flats, amounting to Rs.8,80,665/- which was already paid by the Petitioner according to her proportionate share and so denied taking any extra charge for the same. It is also stated that OP had paid extra Rs.10,984/- for a semi-commercial space in the ground floor of the said building against the quotation of Electricity Department dated 21.12.2021. Further, OP mentioned that the Complainant never came to them with the form for their consent and moreover all the flat owners have already got their Electric meter. OP also averred that they have already obtained occupancy certificate on 31.03.2022 and the same was given to the Petitioner. OP also took the plea in their written version that there were some extra works in the flat of the Petitioner amounting to Rs.80,000/- which the Petitioner had not paid. So, prayed for dismissal of this instant case.

Complainant adduced Evidence where she has reiterated the facts as mentioned in her petition of complaint to which OP filed Questionnaire and the Replies by the Complainant thereto. Similarly, Evidence was filed by the OP to which Questionnaire was filed by the Complainant and Replies thereto. Both parties filed Brief Notes of Argument in support of their contention.

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

1. Whether the instant complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether there was any deficiency in service an unfair trade practice on the part of the OP as alleged?
3. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief(s) as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

All the points are taken up together for convenience of discussion and to avoid repetition of facts.

At the very outset, be it noted that no disputes there between the parties as to the maintainability of the complaint.

On perusal of the documents available with the records it is an admitted fact, the flat in question was already registered and the Petitioner became the absolute owner of the flat by way of execution and registration of deed of conveyance on 07.12.2020. It is also an admitted fact that the occupancy certificate was issued by the concerned Municipality in respect of the said premises.

On further scrutiny of point No.9 of the complaint petition, Complainant alleged that no possession letter and completion certificate was handed over to her to which there is no whisper in the written version/ written objection of the OP, as they have straight away omitted these relevant points. Moreover, going through the questionnaire No.7, 8, 11 & 12 filed by the Complainant in respect of receipt of non – receipt of possession letter and the completion certificate, it is admitted by the OP that they have obtained occupancy certificate to which the Complainant has also not denied. OP averred that he supplied a copy of the occupancy certificates to all the flat owners including the Complainant to which there is no denial.

Regarding completion certificate, admittedly no completion certificate was obtained by the OP till date. In his letter of reply through her Advocate dated 13.01.2022 to the letter of the Complainant (through Advocate) it was claimed by the OP that he completed all the formalities for obtaining completion certificate for which necessary charges have already been paid on 24.08.2021. Now, the matter is under consideration with the concerned authority still. So, on receipt of the completion certificate from the concerned Officer, OP to supply a copy of the same to the Complainant.

As regards, GST Bill, in the written version OP claimed to have not denied to provide GST bill to the Petitioner. So he may be given a direction to provide the paper relating to GST bill to the petitioner in respect of her flat.

With respect to the allegation of unfinished work in the Petitioner’s flat, we do not find any cogent evidence filed by the Complainant, in order to substantiate her claim.

Now, we need to go through the other prayer of the Complainant where it is stated that OP has charged extra for installation of the transformer from the Petitioner as the said installation charges have been shared amongst 15 flat owners which should have been 16 flat owners.

On perusal of the WBSEDCL quotation dated 28.12.2020 annexed with the written version /written objection of the OP, it is clearly stated that the said amount of Rs.8,80,665/- was to be divided amongst 15 owners which comes to Rs.58,711/- for each owner. But there is no such document forthcoming before us that the Complainant was charged extra for installation of new transformer for which the Complainant had claimed the refund of the extra amount, except a copy of maintenance expenses from flat owner’s association to be borne by 16 owners. But the same is not on affidavit nor it was filed with the petition or evidence by the Complainant. This apart, in his reply to the query of the Complainant, OP stated about 15 flat owners in the said premises and that’s why the amount of the quotation was divided by 15 for contribution of each flat owner.

According to Complainant, she gave the prescribed form obtained from the office of Electricity to the OP in order to get connection to her flat. But OP did nothing and kept the form with himself. But OP denied the same. So, in this regard we opined that OP being the developer has to perform his duty if or there be any, in the matter of connection of Electricity to the flat of the Complainant.

So, the Complainant is entitled to get relief in this case following the discussion as made above.

Considering the facts and circumstances, complaint is allowed with Rs.10,000/- for compensation and Rs.3,000/- for cost of litigation in this case.

In the end, the complaint succeeds.

Hence it is,

ORDERED

That the instant case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP.

OP, who is being represented by the sole proprietor, is directed to supply the papers relating to GST Bill in respect of the flat of the Complainant.

OP to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as compensation and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) for cost of litigation to the Complainant.

OP to comply with this order within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @6% until realization.

OP is further directed to supply the completion certificate or a copy thereof to the Complainant on receipt of the same from the concerned authority within 30 days from the date of receipt thereof.

If the above order is not complied with by the OP, Complainant is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

Dictated and corrected by me

                   Member