Hon’ble Mrs. Soma Bhattacharjee, Member
The complainants Manidipa Bose and Pittu Bose filed this complaint CC/318/2018 u/s 17 of C.P. Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party M/s. Ambalika Housing Pvt. Ltd., Developer, represented by Sri Sachin Paik, its Director.
The complaint is valued at Rs. 84,00,000/- (value of flat Rs. 72,00,000/- + compensation claimed Rs. 10,00,000/- + cost of proceeding Rs. 2,00,000/-). The complainants had entered into an agreement with OP for purchase of a flat and car parking space at a consideration of Rs. 72,00,000/- at premises no. 346/1 Hossainpur Madurdaha Ward no. 108, P.S.- Anandapur, Kolkata- 700107, West Bengal.
The gist of the matter is as follows:
Sachin Paik Opposite Party sold out the self contained flat being no. 302, situated on 3rd Floor, Block – C of premises as per schedule A, B & C, with car parking space on execution and registration of the deed of conveyance in favour of the purchasers on 10.01.2013 at D.S.R III, Alipore Opposite Party No., Sachin Paik, posed himself as constituted Attorney of the owner of the land and also as Director of M/s Ambalika Housing Pvt. Ltd. However the completion certificate was not handed over to the complainants at the time of registration and delivery of the flat.
The Opposite Party demanded maintenance charges of Rs. 50,576/- on 18th December, 2017 although they had assured in writing not to claim maintenance charges till handing over the building completion certificate. The complainants replied vide a letter dt. 28.12.2017 that if the OPs did not issue completion certificate by 10.01.2018 they would be compelled to take legal steps against him. Thereafter the complainants filed CC/318/2018.
The complainants have stated that cause of action continues till completion certificate is handed over to the purchaser. The cause of action of the present proceeding arose when the flat and car park in question have been registered. Deed of conveyance was registered on 10.01.2013. The complainants have prayed for direction upon the OP to complete the incomplete work of the flat in question, to demarcate the car parking space, to impose compensation amounting to 10,00,000/- upon the OP, to pay litigation cost of Rs. 2,00,000/- by the OP. The OP appeared and filed W.V. Both sides filed evidence and questionnaires and replies thereof.
The Ld. Counsel for Opposite Party, Sri R. Choumal re-iterated the evidence of the OP and stressed upon the contents of his W.V and reply to questionnaire of the complainants. The complainants had previously filed CC/436/2017 against the OP but vide order no. 03 dt. 20.09.2017 of the Hon’ble 3rd Bench, SCDRC the complaint petition was dismissed being treated as withdrawn.
The Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party argued that the allegation of the flat being incomplete does not stand since the complainants had never prayed for any Advocate Commissioner for assessing whether the flat was incomplete. He also submitted that the OP had assured to maintain all the flats by providing sweepers, security guards and electricity for common areas and this tantamounts to payment of compensation by the OP.
Moreover, as per their written version, the Complainants and others had filed a letter before the KMC authorities stating that the building was constructed as per sanctioned plan. Clause 3 of the deed of conveyance registered on 10.01.2013 mentions that the purchaser is liable to pay KMC taxes from the date of deed of conveyance. However, no tax has been paid to the KMC by the purchaser till today.
The Ld. Counsel for the complainant Sri Barun Prasad pointed out that no claim for payment of municipal tax was raised by the developer before the complainants. Ld. Counsel for the complainants stressed upon the fact that as per section 14 of C.P. Act, 1986, in case there is deficiency in service, then the developer is bound to provide compensation.
Heard the submissions of Ld. Counsels of both sides. Considered all submissions, material records and documents available in this regard.
The observation of NCDRC In I (2011) CPJ 71 (NC) is that “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2 (1) (g), 14 (1)(d), 21 (b) – Housing – Possession given – Facilities not provided – Continuing cause of action – Alleged deficiency in service – District Forum allowed complaint – Appeal dismissed – Hence revision – Contended complaint time-barred – Possession given in 1995 complaint filed in 2007 – Completion certificate and occupancy certificates not issued – Continuing cause of action – Payment made to OP – Liability of OP to provide facilities – Order of State Commission upheld.” This has been cited by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
Sri Barun Prasad, Ld. Advocate for the complainant cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2022 (1) CPR 429 (SC). It appears from head note: “(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 24 – A [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 69] – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 22 – Consumer Complainant – Limitation – Continuing cause of action – Continuing wrong in present case is failure to obtain occupancy certificate – Owing to failure of respondent to obtain certificate, there has been direct impact on members of appellant in terms of payment of higher taxes and water charges to municipal authority – This continuous failure to obtain an occupancy certificate is a breach of obligations imposed on respondent under MOFA and amounts to a continuing wrong – Appellants are entitled to damages arising out of this continuing wrong and their complaint is not barred by limitation.”
In view of appraisal of all materials available on record, careful consideration of submissions of Ld. Counsels of both sides and observation of Hon’ble Apex court and also NCDRC, as quoted above, it appears that the Complainants are consumers in terms of Section 2(i)(d) of C.P. Act, 1986. Opposite Party is negligent and deficient in service in not issuing completion certificate to the complainants in spite of registering and handing over delivery of possession of the flat and car park. The complainants are therefore entitled to relief as prayed for.
It is ordered
The CC/318/2018 is allowed on contest. The Opposite Party, Developer, is directed to handover completion certificate in respect of the scheduled flat and car parking space to the complainants within 120 days from date of this order. Opposite Party is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for harassment and hardship resulting from delay in providing completion certificate, within 120 days of this order. The Opposite Party is also directed to pay a litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- within 120 days of this award.
If the Opposite Party fails to comply with this order within the stipulated period, the complaints will be at liberty to put this award into execution. CC/318/2018 is disposed of accordingly. Free certified copies are to be issued to all parties.
