West Bengal

Kolkata-II(Central)

CC/231/2020

Krishna Adhikary - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. S and D Infratech - Opp.Party(s)

Ld.adv

11 Dec 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
KOLKATA UNIT - II (CENTRAL)
8-B, NELLIE SENGUPTA SARANI, 7TH FLOOR,
KOLKATA-700087.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/231/2020
( Date of Filing : 15 Oct 2020 )
 
1. Krishna Adhikary
J-262/D, Akhay Konar Lane, P.O.Garden Reach, P.S. Garden Reach, Kolkata-700024.
2. Tapan Das
J-262/D, Akhay Konar Lane, P.O.Garden Reach, P.S. Garden Reach, Kolkata-700024.
3. Swapan Das
J-262/D, Akhay Konar Lane, P.O.Garden Reach, P.S. Garden Reach, Kolkata-700024.
4. Ratan Das
J-262/D, Akhay Konar Lane, P.O.Garden Reach, P.S. Garden Reach, Kolkata-700024.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. M/S. S and D Infratech
N-179/1, Mudali 1st Lane, Kolkata-700024, rep. by Santosh Singh
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Swapan Kumar Mahanty PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Sahana Ahmed Basu MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Ashoke Kumar Ganguly MEMBER
 
PRESENT:Ld.adv, Advocate for the Complainant 1
 
Dated : 11 Dec 2020
Final Order / Judgement

Order No. 03   Date-   11.12.2020

 

Today is fixed for order.

The case was heard on 09.12.2020 on admission point.

The facts of the  consumer case in a nutshell is that the complainants’ father was the landlord of a land measuring about 02 cottahs more or less situated at Garden Rich under khatian No. 2 Dag No. 33834 being known as KMC No. J-262/D, Akshoy Kumar Lane, Kolkata-700024 who had entered into a Development Agreement with the OP for construction of a new building thereon after demolishing existing structure thereon. The OP-2 did not hand over the actual area to them as per development agreement, possession letter / completion certificate of the concerned authority to the complainants. Hence, the consumer complaint.

Admitted fact is that the father of the complainants executed Development Agreement dated 24.05.2016 with the OP to construct a (G+4) storied building as per terms mentioned in the development agreement. The complainants’ claim that their father died leaving behind them as legal heirs but no death certificate is forthcoming on  the part of the complainants to establish that their father is no more in the world and they are inherited the property in question. Therefore, the claim of the complainants cannot be entertained without the death certificate of their father, Manmath Das. As such, the consumer complaint is not admitted and liable to be dismissed in limini.

Hence,

Ordered

That the consumer case is not admitted and dismissed in limini.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Swapan Kumar Mahanty]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Sahana Ahmed Basu]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Ashoke Kumar Ganguly]
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.