DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C. C. CASE NO. 654/2014
Date of Filing: Date of Admission Date of Disposal:
28.11.14 17.12.2014 15.05.2015
PETITIONER = Vs. = O.Ps.
1.Dr. Debi Prasad Parekh, 1. M/s. Deep Construction
S/o. Mr. S. L. Parekh, Proprietorship firm,
2. Smt. Kakali Parekh, 2. Shri Suman Das,
W/o. Dr. Debi Prasad Parekh, S/o. Late Bibhuti Bhusan Das,
both are of flat No. 4B, Prop.ofM/s.Deep Construction
276, Swami Vivekananda Road, Both are of DC-6, Sastri Bagan,
Taki Road, P.O & P.S. Barasat, P.O. & P.S. Baguiati, Kol-59,
Dist- North 24 Parganas. Dist- North 24 Parganas.
J U D G E M E N T
The fact of the case, in short, is that the complainants have purchased a flat being No.4B on the fourth floor measuring about 1100 Sq.ft super built up area situated upon an area of 03 Cottahs 14 Chittacks 30 Sq.ft more or less of land apartaining to Mouza-Barasat, C.S. Khatian No. 1278, C.S. Dag No.148, R.S. Khatian No. 142, R.S. Dag No. 305, under P.S, Municipality & A.D.S.R.O Barasat, Dist- North 24 Pgs, under holding No. 276, Swami Vivekananda Road, Taki Road, Ward No. 9, Kol-124, from the O.P. No.2 as developer and owner Smt. Basabi Roy Chowdhury and her five sons and the sale deed was registered at A.R.A-II, Kol, on 17.08.12.
The complainant stated that after having possession of the said flat the complainant found that common area was not developed. The lift was not operational and no outside and inside common area pain was done. Even the slab of the common entrance to the parking place is not in place, the main gate was not installed. There are many cracks in the walls and many dampy areas are seen which the O.Ps agreed to repair in near future.
The complainants further stated that the complainants have paid all the consideration amount at the time of purchasing the Flat i.e. at the time of execution of the deed of conveyance and regularly pays all the charges and taxes.
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 2/-
C. C. Case No.-654/2014
- :: 2 :: -
The complainants also stated that since after detecting such deficiency in service being the bonafide consumer the complainants sent letters to the O.P. himself on 08.03.14 and also to the Chairman, Barasat Municipality on 08.03.14 and notices to the O.P through their Advocate with a good hope that the O.P would take necessary step to rectify the service deficiency though on earlier occasions the O.P verbally assured to complete the stipulated works but failed to comply the same. Lastly on 19.09.14 the complainant sent Advocate’s notice to the O.P but the O.P did not bother to give any reply. Hence the complaint.
In response, to the case, despite due notices were served upon the O.Ps, they neither appeared, nor took any step to contest. Hence the case was heard exparte.
Point for Decision:-
Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
Complainants have submitted affidavit in chief in support of his contention in the complaint. OPs did not file affidavit in chief. Complainants submitted the documents in support of their claim. We have perused the documents. OPs did not turn up to controvert those documents. Hence we are no hesitation to hold that complainants are entitled to get relief as prayed for.
Hence
It is ordered,
that the complaint and same be allowed on exparte against the OPs.
O.Ps are directed to complete the said building as per the agreement and condition of sale deed to the complainant within two months from the date of this order.
O.Ps are also directed to pay Rs 50, 000/- as compensation for mental agony and pain and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order, failing which O.Ps shall have to pay sum of Rs 100/- per days from the date of this order till it realization, as punitive damages, which shall be deposited by the O.Ps in this State Consumer Welfare Fund.
Let copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied for.
Member President
Dictated & Corrected by me.
