West Bengal

StateCommission

MA/563/2014

Prosenjit Mitra - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Dipti Construction - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Subrata Mondal

13 Mar 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
WEST BENGAL
11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087
 
Miscellaneous Application No. MA/563/2014
In
Complaint Case No. CC/123/2013
 
1. Prosenjit Mitra
S/o Dhiren K. Mitra, P-92, Jadu Colony, Behala, Kolkata - 700 034.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. M/s. Dipti Construction
A partnership firm, 63/9, Bama Charan Roy Road, Behala, Kolkata - 700 034.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KALIDAS MUKHERJEE PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY MEMBER
 
For the Appellant:Mr. Subrata Mondal , Advocate
For the Respondent:
ORDER

No.10/13.03.2015

 

HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT

           

            This order relates to hearing on the Miscellaneous Application 563 of 2014 filed by the Complainants praying for appointment of an Engineer Commissioner for inspection of the premises.  Written objection has been filed by the OPs.  It has been stated in the Miscellaneous Application that there are incomplete works, namely, i) main gate of the building has not been installed, ii) lift has not yet been installed, iii) interior construction of the building is incomplete, iv) common area of the building is incomplete, v) completion certificate has not yet been obtained from KMC and vi) there is violation of sanctioned building plan as the OPs constructed illegal construction on the ground floor as well as on the roof. 

 

            The Learned Counsel for the Complainants/Misc. Applicants has submitted that there is incomplete construction and the completion certificate has not been obtained.  It is contended that to prove the points raised by the Complainants the local inspection by an Engineer Commissioner is necessary. 

 

            The Learned Counsel for the OPs has submitted that the alleged incomplete construction has not been specified.  It is contended that the garage is in the possession of the flat owners and for the adjudication of the dispute the holding of inspection by an Engineer Commissioner is not necessary.

 

            We have heard the submission made by both sides and perused the papers on record.  Having regard to the points raised by the Complainants and the objections thereto by the OPs, we are of the considered view that for proper adjudication of the dispute the holding of inspection by an Engineer Commissioner is necessary.

 

            The Miscellaneous Application 563 of 2014 is allowed.  Let an Engineer Commissioner be appointed for holding inspection on the points raised in the Miscellaneous Application.  The Complainants will pay Rs.12,000/- provisionally to the Engineer Commissioner towards the cost of the Commission work.  Registrar of this Commission will do the needful.  Fix 16/06/15 for report from the Engineer Commissioner.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KALIDAS MUKHERJEE]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.