DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C.C. No. 137/2019
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
28.05.2019 04.06.2019 08.07.2022
Complainant/s:- | L.T. Col- (Mrs) Sarmila Sarkar, W/o. Sri Anup Kumar Ghosh, 18C, Sasthitala Road, P.O. Talpukur, P.S. Titagarh, North 24 Parganas, at present residing at shree Apartment at present residing at Shree Apartment, Flat No.4/E, 56(27) S.N. Banerjee Road,P.O. Barrackpore, P.S. Titagarh, North 24 Parganas, Kolkata-700120. = Vs = |
Opposite Party/s:- | 1.M/s. Shree Construction Represented by its partner a) Sri Mrinal Sutradhar, S/o. Sri Manik Sutradhar, Ruiya, P.O.Patulia, P.S. Khardah, Kolkata-700084. B) Sri Raja Mukherjee, S/o. Sushil Kumar Mukherjee, Ichapore Doctor Para, P.O. Ichapore Nawabgunj, P.S. Noapara, Kol-743124. C). Sri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, S/o. Sri Sohanlal Agarwal, 10, A.P. Devi Bazar, P.O. and P.S. Titagar, Kolkata-70009, Dist- North 24 Parganas. |
P R E S E N T :- Shri Debasis Mukhopadhyay…………President.
:- Smt. Monisha Shaw …………………. Member.
JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER
This is a complaint under Section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The complainant stated that one agreement for sale was executed in between the complainant and the O.Ps for purchasing a flat in the 4th floor measuring 980 Sq.ft for consideration of Rs. 11,17,200/-. The O.Ps handed over the possession of the flat and registered sale deed in respect of the flat in favour of the complainant and at the time of registration measurement of flat was increased to 1150 Sq. ft super built up area and as per agreement the complainant paid the entire amount of Rs. 13,11,000/- for 1140 Sq.ft vide sale deed dated 24.12.2009. The O.Ps did not complete the incomplete works in the building and assured the complainant that it would be done within a short time. The complainant stated that the deed was prepared regarding the nature of land as Bastu but the O.Ps did not hand over the conversion certificate. The O.Ps also did not hand over the completion certificate in favour of the complainant. The O.Ps also did not give the roof right. It was a clear deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps and therefore the complainant filed this case praying for direction to the O.Ps to hand over the completion certificate and roof right and also conversion certificate to the complainant and for compensation and cost.
The O.Ps did not appear to contest the case. Hence the case was heard exparte.
The Ld. Advocate for the complainant submitted that the opposite parties did not hand over the completion certificate and also denied roof right and did not give the conversion certificate and hence the complainant is entitled to get the decree for the reliefs as claimed in the complaint.
Contd/-2
C.C. No. 137/2019
:: 2 ::
Considering the contention of the complainant as per written complaint and the evidence adduced by the complainant and the documents filed and the submission of the Ld. Advocate for the complainant, it is found that the complainant categorically stated on oath that she did not get the completion certificate from the opposite parties. Since the completion certificate is very much necessary for the complainant it is held that the complainant is entitled to get the completion certificate from the O.Ps. The O.Ps did not contest or controvert the allegation of the complainant and in absence of any evidence to the contrary to disbelieve the complainant’s evidence it is found that the complainant has proved her case regarding the completion certificate.
The roof right as claimed by the complainant is not maintainable since there is a clause in page No. 13 of the deed of sale filed by the complainant that the purchasers have no title and any user right over the top roof. Accordingly, the prayer for roof right cannot be entertained. The allegation regarding conversion certificate is vague as the complainant could not state what was the previous nature of the property. One building plan was sanctioned by the municipality pre-supposes that the property was Bastu as otherwise the building plan could not be sanctioned for residential purpose. The complainant also could not produce any document that it was converted to Bastu from any other nature of the property. But the complainant is entitled to get the relief regarding the completion certificate as prayed for.
Hence,
it is Ordered,
that the case is allowed exparte against the opposite parties.
The O.Ps are directed to provide the complainant the completion certificate regarding the building within two months from this date, failing which the complainant is to proceed according to law.
Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per the CPR, 2005.
Dictated & Corrected by me
President President
Member
