West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

Cc/581/2014

Shri Tapan Kumar Chatterjee, S/O Late Hemanta Kumar Chatterjee. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. B.S. Construction a sole proprietor ship Frim represented by its sole proprietor Shri Balaram S - Opp.Party(s)

01 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , JUDGES’ COURT, ALIPORE KOLKATA-700 027

 

C.C. CASE NO. _581  OF ___2014____

 

DATE OF FILING : 2.12.2014     DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:_01.06.2016_

 

Present                         :   President       :   Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :  Smt.  Sharmi Basu                                  

 

COMPLAINANT                   :  Shri Tapan Kumar Chatterjee,s/o late Hemanta Kumar Chatterjee of Flat no.1A, Srirampore Road North, P.O Garia, P.S. Patuli, Kolkata -84

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                                :   M/s B.S Construction, represented by its Sole Proprietor                   Shri Balaram Sardar of 102/5, Srirampur North, P.O Garia, P.S. Patuli, Kolkata – 84.

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

 

            Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member

            The petition of complaint made under section 12 of the C.P Act ,1986 has been filed by the complainant Sri Tapan Kumar Chatterjee against the O.Ps on the ground of deficiency in service on the part of  the O.P .

             It is the short case of the complainant that he is the owner of land measuring 6 cottahas 11 chittaks 41 sq.ft at premises no.76, Srirampur, P.O Garia, P.S. Patuli, Kolkata – 84. On 8.9.2002 complainant entered into an agreement with the O.P Promoter for erection of a new building on condition that 40% of the areas of the newly constructed building as well as horizontal and vertical common spaces will belong to the complainant and the rest 60% will belong to the O.P and other features contained in the agreement. After that, another agreement was entered into between the complainant and O.P on 3.10.2010 ,wherein the salient feature is that a flat marked A on the second floor, a flat marked B on top floor South Eastern corner, a shop room with 40% built up area , two open car parking space duly sanctioned by the KMC authority and 40% common space.

            The KMC sanctioned five car parking space out of which complainant owns two car parking space.  The case of the complainant is that O.P sold few car parking spaces which are not sanctioned and the same is otherwise common spaces meant for the entire building and bent upon to sell remaining common spaces to the diverse proposed purchase by concealing the fact that the O.P is selling common space in the name of car parking space. The O.P has also not obtained occupancy certificate . Complainant requested the O.P not to sell the common areas to any third party . But it yielded no result . Hence this case praying for  providing free access to the common areas and further direction upon the O.P not to use any portion of the common areas as car parking spaces either himself or through his agent to whom the parking is alleged to have been sold beyond the sanctioned area or number of parking and to provide completion certificate , cost and compensation.

            The appeared and filed written version denying all the material allegations contending inter alia that it is a civil dispute and O.P never entered into any agreement with the complainant, wherein the O.P had agreed to commit to hand over 40% o0f the common space to the complainant. The positive case of the O.P is that he never sold an inch of common space as garage or car parking space and he has initiated proceedings for obtaining completion certificate. O.P has prayed for dismissal of the case with exemplary cost.

Points for Decision

1. Whether the complainant is a Consumer or not.
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps or not.
3. Whether the complainant is eligible to get relief as prayed for partly or fully.

Decision with reasons

            The complainant was absent . ….

             After scrutinizing vividly the petition of complaint, written version, Evidence on affidavit, questionnaire and reply filed by the parties, and hearing argument, it appears that complainant being a land owners entered into a development agreement on 8.9.2002 for construction of a multistoried building on the premises in question and the supplementary agreement on 3.10.2010 ,whereby both the parties agreed to share 40% land owner’s allocation and 60% developer’s allocation. Complainant is in possession of the suit flat ,though the complainant has raised allegation regarding use of common areas, car parking spaces but complainant has not submitted a scrap of paper to establish the same ,nor has prayed before this Forum for expert opinion or Commissioner’s report. On the other hand, Ld. Advocate for the O.P filed a copy of completion certificate of the KMC ,from where, it is crystal clear that the KMC has already handed over the completion certificate of the suit premises and it is next to impossible that O.P being a developer having completion certificate of the suit premises has not handed over ot the same to the complainant.

            Therefore, in light of the above discussion we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant has miserably failed to establish his case and his allegation has no merit.

            Therefore, we have no other alternative but to dismiss the case without cost.

            Hence,

                                                                        Ordered

That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.

Let a plain copy of judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rule.

 

 

                                    Member                                                           President

 

 

Dictated and corrected by me

 

 

 

                        Member

 

 

 

 

 

 

The judgement in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,