1. The case of the complainant is as follows:- 

      The Ops being developers started to raise construction of a multi storied building prior to 02.12.2004 on 3 Cottahs 13 Sq.ft. of land situated at Mouza – Jyangra under Rajarhat Gopalpur Municipality under Police Station Rajarhat and the complainant being in need of a flat selected a 2Bhk flat of 880 Sq.ft. on the 3^rd Floor in the proposed multi storied building which was priced at Rs. 9,24,000/- (Rupees nine lakh twenty four thousand). Accordingly an agreement was signed by the buyers and developers on 02.12.2004 and payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- was made on the self-same date. Balance amount of Rs. 6,24,000/- was paid by 30.06.2005 and possession was delivered on 23.06.2005.Execution and registration of sale deed were done on 30.12.2019. Since the building was not found in habitable condition the Ops assured the complainant that the incomplete works related to installation of lift and water connection would be done shortly. But the Ops failed to keep such assurance and did not hand over the copy of completion certificate for which the complainant had to file this case on 28.11.2019 seeking direction to the OP for handing over the completion certificate, for installation of lift and for making arrangement of water supply together with for compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 25,000/-.

2. The Ops have contested the case by filing written version, evidence and questionnaire touching upon the evidence of the complainant and praying for dismissal of the case which has been contended by the Ld. Advocate appearing for the Ops that the complainant cannot get any relief from this case due to efflux of time. According to him, since the delivery of possession and transfer of flat under a valid deed were made the claim of the petitioner as raised in 2019 is barred by the law of limitation. It is in the written version of OP-2 that copy of completion certificate was handed over to the complainant and that the story as to installation of lift and as to water supply is unfounded one.  

3. In support of his case, the complainant has filed (a) copy of agreement, (b) money receipts, (c) agreement for sale, (d) possession certificate, (e) copy of deed of conveyance, (f) evidence on affidavit and (g) BNA. Those documents have gone unchallenged for which they may be supposed to carry impeccable evidentiary value.

4. It is an admitted fact that the transfer of the flat was done on or before 30.12.2019 under a valid document and that the present case has been filed after gap of almost 10 years. By filing a instant case, the complainant has raised mainly two issues such as, non-installation of lift and non-supply of water. From the contention advanced by the Ld. Advocates, it is ascertained that in addition to the complainant other flat owners are there to use water and staircase. Admittedly, the complainant is a aged person. The complainant being one of several flat owners has alone picked up the aforesaid two issues to drive the OPs onto the floor of this Commission.

5. It is not in the agreement that a lift would be installed – although there is mention in the deed of sale about the under construction lift. It would be better to presume that the shaft of the lift was then under construction as on 30.12.2019. There is nothing on record to show that proportionate price of the lift was paid by the complainant. Then it stands to reason that gratuitously the lift shaft was partly constructed by the OP.  Since no price was paid for installation of lift the complainant was and is debarred from asking the OP for providing a lift into the building. The complainant along with other flat owners can now arrange for installation of lift at their own cost. The OP who has not received anything therefor cannot be put under to do so. Similarly it would not be palatable story if it is said that the complainant along with his family members and other flat owners are residing there since 2009 without water. The complainant’s case as to water supply is also barred by the law of limitation.

6. The Ops were undoubtedly under obligation to supply a copy of completion certificate to each of the flat owners. But it has been claimed by the OP that the same was handed over to the complainant long ago. It is not in the record that the complainant ever demanded such a copy after 2009 by sending letter or otherwise. Therefore the complainant’s claim as to non-supply of completion certificate appears to be unfounded one. It is a product of his afterthought. Therefore there should not be any direction to the OP for supply of a copy of certificate. Therefore the case of the complainant fails to attract any damages or reliefs.

7. Hence, it is ordered, that the casa be and the same is dismissed on contest ; but without costs.

Let a plain copy be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR.

Dictated and corrected by

[HON'BLE MR. Lakshmi Kanta Das]
PRESIDENT