DATE OF FILING : 11-10-2012.
DATE OF S/R : 20-11-2012.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 04-04-2013.
Ashok Kumar Sarkar,
son of late Ganesh Chandra Sarkar.
Tushar Kumar De,
son of late Chandi Kumar De,
Braja Gopal Singha,
son of late Haralal Singha,
Sukumar Sinha,
son of late Chandra Kanta Sinha,
Dr. Gouri Bandopadhyay,
w/o. Ashish Bandopadhyay,
Seemanta Banerjee,
son of Shyamal Banerjee,
all reside at 6/1/4, Kai Pukur Lane,
Block A, P.O. & P.S. Sibpur,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711 102.-------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANTS.
Versus -
M/S. J.K. Constructions Pvt. Ltd.
represented through his
Managing Director, Molla Akram Ulla,
having its registered office at
83, Mollapara Lane, P.S. Sibpur,
District – Howrah,
D istrict – 711102.---------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
The instant case was filed by complainants U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986
wherein the complainants have prayed for direction upon the o.p., M/S. J.K. Constructions Pvt. Ltd. represented through the Managing Director, Molla Akram Ulla, to complete the unfinished works as mentioned in the Schedule ‘B’ on the basis of the surveyor’s report submitted by Government Approved Chartered Engineer or alternatively to pay the six complainants jointly Rs. 19,97,333/- for completion of the unfinished works together with other reliefs as the O.P. in spite of repeated requests of the complainants did not pay heed to complete the unfinished works. Hence the case
The o.p. in his written version admitted that the complainants are the
purchasers of the respective flats and he is the developer of the property situated at 6/1/4, Kaipukur Lane, P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah, but he disputed the alleged unfinished jobs as mentioned in Schedule ‘B’ of the complaint.
Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. ?
Whether the complainants are entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
Both the points are taken up together for consideration. On scrutiny of the record
it appears that enclosures 1 series are the requests to the O.P. to complete the unfinished works. The deed of conveyance as well as the agreement justifies that the O.P. in contravention of the master plan left the works as per the B schedule of the complaint unfinished. Again on 7th July, 2011 the complainants pinpointed to the O.P. the catalogue of the unfinished works as enclosed in Annexure 2 series. Subsequently on 23-01-2012 seeing the lackadaisical attitude of the O.P. sent letter through registered post ( Annexure 3 series ) for taking proper step. On perusal of the master plan ( Annexure 4 series ) we come across that the violation is rampant and the O.P. did not care for the repeated complaints of the complainants for having their complaints redressed. Having no other alternative the complainants were compelled to engage a chartered engineer and Government Panel Valuer to make thorough inspection. He submitted the valuation report on 05-09-2012 ( Annexure 5 series ).
Whatever be the submission of the O.P., we find no justification for non
compliance on the part of the O.P. to complete the unfinished works. That apart the installation of a transformer in front of the Block ‘A’ of the building cannot justify a minimum sense of proportion. Whatever explanation has been put forward by the O.P., it appears to be fragile and cannot merit any acceptance.
In the result, we are of the view that the O.P. has totally transgressed his power
and authority to turn a deaf ear to the requests of the complainants. In our considered opinion the prayers of the complainants require to be allowed. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 137 of 2012 ( HDF 137 of 2012 ) be and the same is allowed on contest with costs against the O.P.
The O.P. be directed to complete the unfinished works as mentioned in the Schedule ‘B’ of the complaint within 60 days from the date of this order or alternatively to pay the complainants jointly the sum of Rs. 19.97,333/- as approved by chartered engineer within the aforementioned period.
The o.p. be further directed to construct permanent concrete overhead water tank in place of existing PVC water tank within the aforementioned period.
The O.P. be further directed to cause removal of the transformer from the entrance gate of the Block A in persuasion with the CESC Authority within the stipulated period.
The complainants are also entitled to a litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
The complainants are at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
