Judgment : Dt.14.11.2017
Shri S. K. Verma, President.
This is a complaint made by Sri Manas Panda, son of Sasanka Panda and Smt. Chandratapa Sengupta (Panda), wife of Sri Manas Panda, both residing at 2nd floor flat at Premises No.128, Sapuipara Baidya Para, P.O.-Santoshpur, PS.-Garfa, Kolkata-700 075 against M/s R.S.S.Enterprise, a partnership firm, having its registered office at 9/38, Bijoygarh, P.O. & P.S.-Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 032, OP No.1, Sri Shib Shankar Basu Roy, son of late Chitta Ranjan Basu Roy, residing at 9/38, Bijoygarh, P.O. & P.S.-Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 032, OP No.2 and Sri Ratan Mondal, son of Sri Anil Mondal, residing at C/1B, Bapuji Nagar, P.O.-Baghajatin, P.S.-Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 092, OP No.3 praying for direction upon the OPs to handover completion certificate of the building and to make the water supply line from KMC to the flat and another direction to pay damages of Rs.3,00,000/- and to pay Rs.30,000/- as carrier cost for drinking water and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-.
Facts in brief are that OP insisted the Complainants to get the sale deed registered immediately. Complainants pointed out to the OPs about the defects and deficiency in construction and fittings of the flat. Complainants also pointed out to the OPs about the deficiency in supply of drinking water. OPs assured Complainant as for removing the defects and so Complainants took the possession and a deed of conveyance was made in favour of the Complainant. Since receiving possession of the flat Complainants on several occasions requested the OPs to perform their part of contract and to remove the defects. Complainant requested the OPs. But OPs avoided it. OPs negligently performed their obligations. OPs did not hand over completion certificate to the Complainants. Complainants stated to the OPs the defects in services as water supply line from KMC, completion certificate, bathroom and kitchen fittings, low quality of electrical wiring, doors, iron gate at verandah, maintenance of the building, light at common space, damp at wall, crack at ceiling and sliding window. So, Complainant filed this complaint.
OPs filed written version and denied all the allegations of the complaint. OPs have stated that after being satisfied, Complainants took the possession and got a conveyance deed in their favour. Further, OPs have stated that the points raised by Complainants are not part of the agreement and in order to squeeze money, Complainants have manufactured these points. So, OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief where they have reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition. Against this OP filed questionnaire to which Complainants did not file affidavit-in-reply. OPs filed evidence to which Complainant did not file questionnaire and the case was fixed for argument.
Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
On perusal of the prayer portion, it appears that Complainant has prayed for a direction upon the OPs to handover the completion certificate of the building and a direction to make the water connection from KMC.
In this regard, it is clear that the deed of conveyance has been made. On perusal of the deed of conveyance, it appears that the consideration money is Rs.46,00,000/-. The settled principle of law is that this Forum has only jurisdiction where total amount of consideration is Rs.20,00,000/-. So, this Forum by virtue of the deed of conveyance loses its jurisdiction.
Furthermore, since the deed was made and possession was handed over it can be presumed that Complainant after being satisfied got the conveyance deed registered by the OPs in their favour. Complainants have alleged that after persuasion the deed of conveyance was accepted by them. However legal possession is not like that because if Complainants accepted the possession and also title is transferred in favour of the Complainants on the strength of a registered deed the Forum presumed that at the time of handing over possession there was no deficiency. As such, we are of the view that Complainants failed to establish the allegations which they made.
Furthermore, Complainants have prayed for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- carrier cost of Rs.30,000/- with litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-.
Considering the facts and circumstances, it appears that Complainants cannot be awarded compensation because this Forum has no jurisdiction to pass any order over this complaint as because it lacks pecuniary jurisdiction.
As such, we are of the view that Complainants are not entitled for any relief.
Hence,
ordered
CC/325/2016 and the same is dismissed on contest.
