This is a complaint made by Mrs. Saswati Bhattacharya, wife of Late Badri Narayan Bhattacharya, residing at Flat No.10, Premises No.82, Gangapuri, P.S.- Regent Park, P.O.- Purba Putiari, Kolkata-700 093 against  (1) M/s Abacus Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., 334, Sree Pally, P.O.- Purba Putiary, Kolkata-700 093, OP No.1 and four others praying for (a) a direction upon the OP to put up a projection outside the expose opening on the north of the corridor as mentioned in Paragraph 12(a) and to provide protection cover like grill with standing arrangement to prevent the user of the corridor from falling down, (b) to complete drainage around the entire building with appropriate slopes and surface cover, (c) to handover the entire infrastructure facilities connected with association service and utilities, (d) to arrange for execution and registration of deed of conveyance for transfer of undivided share, and (e) to pay extra amount to pay stamp duty.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant was an officer of M/S IBP Co. Ltd. and residing at Sayantani Apartment, 82, Gangapuri, OP No.2, 3, 4 & 5 are carrying business of real estate in the name and style of M/s Abacus Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. OP No.1 was to make construction of a multi-storied building at Calcutta Municipal Corporation Premises No.82, Gangapuri and that multi-storied building containing residential flats. Complainant became interested in acquiring one flat booked flat No10 on the first floor measuring 700 sq.ft. at a total consideration of Rs.2,10,000/-. On 2.6.1990 Complainant entered into an agreement with the OPs having some terms and conditions. Further, Complainant has stated that the construction of the flat was delayed and it remained incomplete. OP did not make the services in the building as agreed. So, Complainant filed this case.

            On the basis of the above facts, the complaint was admitted and notices were served. But, OP did not appear. So, the case was heard ex-parte.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief. But, OP neither filed evidence not contest this case. As such, this case was heard ex-parte.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to reliefs as mentioned in the complaint petition.

            On perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that Complainant has prayed for a direction on the respondent to construct a project, etc. as mentioned in the paragraph 12A and cover like grill. Now, question arises whether this is covered by the agreement.

            On perusal of the agreement, it appears that there is no such stipulation. As such, this prayer cannot be allowed.

            Further, Complainant has prayed for completing the drainage around entire building with appropriate slopes and surface cover.

            Since, OPs have not contested the case, it cannot be presumed that drainage is a requirement and it should be completed by every builder/promoter. Accordingly, direction be given upon the OP to make such drainage.

            Further, Complainant has prayed for facilities connected with the Association service and utilities.

            In our view, this prayer is vague and ambiguous and, so, it cannot be allowed.

            To arrange for execution and deed of conveyance, in this regard, it appears on perusal of the agreement for sale which is a Xerox copy that OP Abacus Construction Co. Private Ltd. to hand over the possession to the Complainant and so since the allegation remains un-rebutted and unchallenged direction for registration is required to be made.

            So far as other prayers are concerned, we do not find any material to allow these prayers.

            Hence,

ordered

            CC/365/2016 is allowed in part ex-parte. OPs are directed to execute a registration deed of conveyance in favour of Complainant within six months of this order. OPs are also directed to see that proper drainage system is provided.