DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C.C. No.247/2022
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
08.08.2022 16.08.2022 30.03.2023
Complainant/s:- | - Smt. Chandrama Gupta(Dey), W/o. Sudip Gupta, D/o. Late Chittaranjan Dey, Nandan Kanan, P.O. Rahara, P.S. Khardah,Kolkata-700118, Dist- North 24 Pgas, at present residing at B-1/266,P.O. and P.S. Ka;uamo, Dist- Nadia, Pin-741235.
- Smt. Lalima Mondal, W/o. Kamal Mondal, D/o. Late Chittaranjan Dey, 1B Megahertz Tower, AK-42, 12-AK Block, Near Loha Bridge, 3, Water Tank, Action Area-1, P.O. and P.S. New Town, Kolkata-700156.
- Sri Chand Dey, S/o. Late Chittaranjan Dey, Nandan Kanan, P.O. Rahara, P.S. Khardah, Kolkata-700118, Dist- North 24 Pgs.
= Vs |
Opposite Party/s: | - M/s. Maa Tara Developer, a proprietorship firm
having its office at I.C. Road, Arunachal, P.O. Rahara, P.S. Khardah, Kolkata-700118, Dist- North 24 Parganas. 2. Sri Rajib Ghosh, S/o. Sri Dilip Kr. Ghosh, I.C. Road, Arunachaal, P.O.Rahara, P.S. Khardah, Kolkata-700118, Dist- North 24 Parganas. |
P R E S E N T :- Smt. Monisha Shaw …………………. Member.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu …………………. Member.
JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER
This complaint is filed by the Complainant U/s 35 (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (as amended up to date) alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the OPs as the OPs did not take any step to redress his grievance till filing of this complaint.
The Complainant stated that the Opposite Party No. 1 being a proprietorship firm is engaged in construction and development works and the O.P. No. 1 firm is represented by its sole proprietor by Opposite Party No. 2. Chittaranjan Dey, s/o Late Gopal Chandra Dey was absolute owner of a plot of Vastu land being no. 2/1, measuring about 2 Cottahs 01 Chhitaks 17 sq.ft. under Dag No. 1136 and 1138, Mouza – Rahara, J.L. No. 03, R.S. No. 61, Touzi No. 184 to 190, under Khatian No. 285, 1333 within the limit of Khardah Municipality under Ward No. 12,Nandankanan, P.S. – Khardah, District – North 24 Parganas, by virtue of purchase from Shri Sachindra Nath Ghosh on execution and registration of a deed of sale registered in the O/o the A.D.S.R., Barrackpore and recorded in Book 1, Vol. No. 158, Pages from 219 to 232, being no. 5853 for the year 1994. The said landed property is specifically detailed and demarcated in schedule of the said land.
The Complainant further stated that said Chittaranjan Dey wanted to develop the said land by constructing multi-storied building with the consisting of flats for residential purpose, shop etc. and accordingly to be acquainted with Opposite Parties. After that the Opposite Parties agreed to construct such multi-storied building in the said land of Chittaranjan Dey certain terms and conditions and accordingly said Chittaranjan Dey as owner and
Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./
: : 2 : :
C.C. No.247/2022
the Opposite Parties as developer jointly entered into a development agreement on 07/05/2014 which was registered in the O/o of the A.D.S.R, Sodepur and recorded in Book 1, C.D., Vol. No. 4, Page from 7819 to 7834, being No. 01582 for the year 2014.
The Complainant also stated that the developer will construct G+ 2 multi-storied building on the schedule land as per sanctioned plan of Khardah Municipality consisting of number of flat for residential and shops for commercial purpose with the help of experts hands and responsibility and cost of the same will be borne by the developer and the work will be completed within 01 year from the date of sanctioning of the plan by the municipality due to unavoidable circumstances this time may be altered.
As per agreement the owner will get 40% and the developer will get 60% according to sanctioned building plan and at the time of this agreement the developer will pay Rs. 50,000/- by cash in favour of the land owner. In accordance with the terms of clause 8 of the Development Agreement dated 07/05/2014 said Chittaranjan Dey executed development power of attorney on 07/05/2014 in favour of the Opposite Parties which was registered in the O/o the A.D.S.R, Sodepur and recorded in Book 1, C.D., Vol. No. 4, Page from 7819 to 7834, being No. 01582 for the year 2014. Although the Opposite Parties were under obligation to pay Rs. 50,000/- cash on the date of execution of agreement but the said amount was not paid by the Opposite Parties but the Opposite Parties assured to pay the said amount. At the time of execution of such agreement, said Chittaranjan Dey was very old and his age about 75 years and due to his old age he was not in a position to keep constant vigil about the progress of the project and neither did he discuss about the said project with his family members. In the meantime, the Opposite Parties obtained sanctioned building plan and started to construct the new G+ 2 multi-storied building. At that time said Chittaranjan Dey was going to bad health and also requested the Opposite Party to provide the demarcation of the owner’s allocation of 40% (as per agreement) and not paid Rs. 50,000/-. After few years, the said Chittaranjan Dey died on 11/12/2021 at the age of 82 years. After the death of the said Complainant all the documents relating papers handed over to the Complainant / Petitioner No. 3 and the Complainant No. 3 on 20/05/2022 contacted the O.P. No. 2 and asked him to deliver the owners allocation but the O.P. No. 2 was very much reluctant. In the meantime, the Complainant came to know that the Opposite Parties transferred some of their flats to the third party out of the owner’s allocation. The value of the land on the date of execution of the development agreement on 07/05/2014 has been computed as valuation of the present complaint case which is Rs. 14,64,000/-.
The Complainant further stated that on several occasion she requested the Opposite Parties to inform their part of agreement.
Opposite Parties did not appeared before this Commission and not filed any W/V but the Opposite Party received the notice on 22/08/2022.
SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY
All the piece and parcel of a plot of Vastu land being no. 2/1, measuring about 2 Cottahs 01 Chhitaks 17 sq.ft. under Dag No. 1136 and 1138, Mouza – Rahara, J.L. No. 03, R.S. No. 61, Touzi No. 184 to 190, under Khatian No. 285, 1333 within the limit of Khardah Municipality under Ward No. 12, Nandankanan, P.S. – Khardah, District – North 24 Parganas along with a multi-storied G+2 building named “SHRISHTI” and the said property is butted and bounded as follows.
ON THE NORTH : OTHERS PROPERTY.
ON THE SOUTH : MUNICIPAL ROAD.
ON THE EAST : 6’ WHITE COMMON PASSAGE.
ON THE WEST : OTHERS PROPERTY.
Contd. To Page No. 3 . . . ./
: : 3 : :
C.C. No.247/2022
Prayer of the Complainants:-
- That the Opposite Parties be directed to furnish a copy of sanctioned building plan of the multi-storied building constructed on the Schedule land to the Complainant.
- That the Opposite Parties be directed to hand over 40% area of the sanctioned building plan and towards owner’s allocation to the Complainant within time as may be prescribed by the Hon’ble Commission.
- That the Opposite Parties be directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- in terms of clause 23 of the Development Agreement dated 07/05/2014 to the Complainants along with 18% interest on and from 07/05/2014 until realization.
- That the Opposite Parties be directed to supply Completion Certificate to the Complainants by the time as may be fixed by the Hon’ble Commission.
- That the Opposite Parties jointly or severally directed to pay a consolidated sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- to the Complainants for damages sustained by the Complainants towards harassment, mental agony and physical pain and anguishment.
- That the Opposite Parties jointly or severally directed to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- to the Complainants towards compensation, for deficiency in service and negligence and also for adopting unfair trade practice.
- That the Opposite Parties be directed to pay litigation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Complainant.
- Any other relief / reliefs which the Complainants are entitled under law, equity and natural justice be awarded.
Following issued were framed for the purpose of decision:-
- Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief / reliefs in this case.
Decision with reasons:-
Considering the facts and circumstances as well as nature and character of this case all the points are interlinked to each other and as such all the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of brevity and convenience.
On perusal of the materials along with the supporting affidavit related to documents available in the case record as well as hearing of argument by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainants, it is revealed that the Complainants handed over the plot as mentioned in the schedule and there was an agreement between the Complainants and the Developer and other O.Ps. As per agreement the Developer and the O.Ps are liable to pay Rs. 50,000/- in cash and 40% of the owner’s allocation of the constructed multi-storied building.
Here the status of the OPs are service provider and the Complainants being a customer of the OPs so the Complainants become the consumer as per Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The Complainants Smt. Chandrama Gupta(Dey), W/o. Sudip Gupta, D/o. Late Chittaranjan Dey, Nandan Kanan, P.O. Rahara, P.S. Khardah,Kolkata-700118, Dist- North 24 Pgas, at present residing at B-1/266,P.O. and P.S. Ka;uamo, Dist- Nadia, Pin-741235, Smt. Lalima Mondal, W/o. Kamal Mondal, D/o. Late Chittaranjan Dey, 1B Megahertz Tower, AK-42, 12-AK Block, Near Loha Bridge, 3, Water Tank, Action Area-1, P.O. and P.S. New Town, Kolkata-700156, Sri Chand Dey, S/o. Late Chittaranjan Dey, Nandan Kanan, P.O. Rahara, P.S. Khardah, Kolkata-700118, Dist- North 24 Pgs and the claimed amount does not exceed the pecuniary limit of this Commission. Therefore, this Commission has ample power to try this case.
Contd. To Page No. 4 . . . ./
: : 4 : :
C.C. No.247/2022
We have perused the complaint as well as Examination-in-Chief on affidavit filed by the Complainants. We have also perused the Development Agreement which was provided by the O.P members with the supporting affidavit and other documents filed by the Complainants. On perusal of the aforesaid materials it appears that the Complainants had given their properties to the Developer and other O.Ps with the help of the Development Agreement and as per agreement the Opposite Parties have to be paid of Rs. 50,000/- along with 40% of owner’s allocation within 01 year.
Since the O.Ps did not paid the said amount i.e. Rs. 50,000/- to the Complainants and did not hand over the 40% owners allocation as per agreement to the Complainants, as such there is deficiency in service on part of the O.Ps.
The discussed points bear positive results. As such we are of the view that the Complainants are entitled to receive their agreed amount and 40% of the owner’s allocation of the said multi-storied building and they are also entitled to get other relief/reliefs and that will be reflected in the ordering portion.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Fees paid by the Complainants.
Hence,
It is ordered,
That the case being no. C.C./247/2022 be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the O.Ps with cost of Rs. 20,000/-
The O.Ps are directed to pay of Rs. 50,000/- along with 40% of the Owner’s allocation within 03 (three) months from this date of delivery of judgment.
The Complainants do get a further decree of Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost within 03 (three) months from this date, failing which the Complainants may take step according to law.
Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.
Dictated & Corrected by me
Member
Member Member
