DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C.C. No. 124/2020
Date of Filing Date of Admission Date of Disposal
04.12.2020 23.12.2020 28.12.2023
Complainant/s:- | Srimati Payel Maity Roy, W/o Sri Sudip Roy, residing at Shila Apartment, Flat No. 3/C, 2nd floor, 2 no. Prantik, near Kat Pole, P.O. Pansila, P.S. Khardah, District North 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700112. =Vs= |
Opposite Party/s:- | - M/s Spark India Construction, having its office at 69, B.T. Road, Khardah, P.O & P.S Khardah, District North 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700117.
- Mr. MD. Afsar Alam, S/o Late Md. Julfikar, by faith Hindu, by nationality Indian, residence of 88, P.K. Biswas Road, P.O & P.S Khardah, District North 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700117.
- Mr. Sanjay Chakraborty, S/o Late Ashutosh Chakraborty, by faith Hindu, by nationality Indian, residing at Prantik, Panshila, Canalside Road, near Katpole, P.O Panshila, P.S. Khardah, District North 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700112.
|
P R E S E N T :- Sri. Daman Prosad Biswas……….President.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu…………………. Member.
JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER
Complainant above named filed this complaint U/s 34 read with section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the aforesaid Opposite Parties praying for direction to the Opposite Parties to install transformer and electric pole, direction to hand over completion certificate, direction to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/-, direction to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as litigation cost and further reliefs.
She alleged that O.P No. 1 is a proprietorship firm and O.P No. 2 is the proprietor of the said firm and O.P No. 3 is the land owner / vendor. The Complainant had decided to purchase one flat and she entered into a deed of conveyance (sale-deed) in respect of a residential flat measuring 487 sq.ft. with the consideration of Rs. 9,00,950/-. O.P No. 1-3 executed the said sale-deed on 09/04/2015. After the registration Opposite Parties denied to hand over the aforesaid flat and possession letter in favour of the Complainant on the ground that Opposite Parties will solve the flaw of damp roof on the flat owned by O.P No. 3. After repairing possession letter was handed over to the Complainant on 15/03/2016. Thereafter, Complainant went to the office of Opposite Parties and asked them about the photocopies of title deeds/mother deeds of the land, photocopy of mutation certificate, photocopy of settlement records and LR, photocopy of sanctioned building plan but O.P No. 1-3 did not provide the same in favour of the Complainant. Thereafter, Complainant sent several reminders to the Opposite Parties for issuing completion certificate to the Complainant but no fruitful result was found. Till date no transformer, electric pole was installed. Opposite Parties took Rs. 15,000/- from Complainant for installation of transformer. Soon after taking the possession of the flat flaws were detected. There were water leakage in the toilet area of the Complainant’s flat. Repairing work done on 26/09/2016. After few days same damp water leakage problem were started. But Opposite Parties denied the same. Complainant is recently started to reside at the said flat and Opposite Parties are reluctant to repair the water leakage problem for many years. Complainants contacted with the Opposite Parties and earnestly requested them to repair the floor and wall of the flat and hand over the completion certificate with valid legal papers and documents but Opposite Parties failed to pay the same.
Hence, the Complainant filed this case.
Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./
: : 2 : :
C.C. No. 124/2020
O.P No. 1 and 2 filed W/V and denied the entire allegations made in the petition of complaint. They further stated that on 26/09/2016. They already repaired the damages but surprisingly after a long time i.e. more or less 5 years Complainants is demanding the same service from the O.P No. 1 and 2 and present damages seems to be occurred to improper use by the Complainant which is not desirable. He prays for dismissal of the case.
O.P No. 3 contest this case by filing a separate W/V. He also denied the entire allegations made in the petition of complaint. He further stated that no cause of action had ever been assessed to file this case, reliefs claimed by the Complainant are barred by law and baseless and Complainant is not at all entitled to get any relief as prayed for. He prayed for dismissal of the case.
Trial
During trial Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief. No questionnaire was filed on behalf of the O.P No. 1 and 2 and on behalf of the O.P No. 3.
Documents
Complainant at the time of filing of this case filed the following documents. This documents were verified at the time of hearing argument.:-
- Letter of possession dated 15/03/2016 issued in favour of Complainant….1 sheet…Xerox.
- Copy of complaint of Complainant dated 18/06/2017 addressed to Assistant Director….1 sheet…Xerox.
- Copy of Postal Receipt…….xerox.
- Copy of complaint of the Complainant dated 10/03/2017 addressed to West Bengal Human Rights Commission….1 sheet….xerox.
- Copy of complaint dated 10/03/2017 filed by Complainant addressed to Barrackpore Police Commissionerate….xerox.
- Copy of complaint of the Complainant dated 10/03/2017 addressed to National Commission for Women, New Delhi……Xerox.
- Copy of complaint of Complainant dated 10/03/2017 addressed to C.P, Barrackpore Police Commissionerate……..xerox.
- Copy of G.D file No. 1054/17 dated 12/05/2017.
- Copy of complaint dated 12/05/2017 addressed to I/C, Khardah P.S….xerox.
- Copy of reply addressed to Complainant dated 12/04/2017 issued by Susma Sahu.
- Copy of reply dated 21/06/2017 issued by Member Secretary, West Bengal Commission for Women.
- Copy of reply dated 31/08/2017 issued by Assistant Secretary Mr. Tapan Chandra Ghosh.
- Copy of order sheet dated 09/09/2017 issued by Executive Magistrate, Barrackpore.
- Copy of petition U/s 107 Cr. P.C….xerox.
- Copy of complaint dated 23/06/2020 addressed to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Calcutta High Court.
- Copy of complaint dated 19/03/2021 addressed to Commissioner of Police, Barrackpore Police Commissionerate.
- Copy of complaint dated 19/03/2021 address to O/C Khardah P.S…..xerox.
- Copy of G.D No. issued by Khardah P.S.
- Copy of complaint lodge before the A.C.J.M, Barrackpore.
BNA
Complainant filed BNA. O.P No. 3 filed BNA.
Contd. To Page No. 3 . . . ./
: : 3 : :
C.C. No. 124/2020
Decision with Reasons
It is admitted position that Complainant had purchased one flat from the O.P No. 1-3. It is the grievance of the Complainant that said flat suffered with some defects. Complainant further alleged that inspite of repeated requests O.P No. 1 and 2 not yet repaired the same. Some portions of the wall are still now in damaged condition. Complainant in support of his contention produced the photographs of damaged walls and floors. Inspite of several requests Opposite Parties not yet repaired the same till date. Opposite Parties denied the said fact in their W/V. On perusal of record we find that dispute is going on since long and several complaints were lodged by the Complainant before the different authorities relating to her aforesaid allegations. Moreover, no counter evidence have been filed by the Opposite Parties rebutting the aforesaid contention of the Complainant. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence of the Complainant.
During the hearing, Ld. Advocate for the O.P No. 3 argued that they have already arranged the transformer and at present dispute relating the transformer have already been solved. Ld. Advocate for the Complainant admitted the said fact and submitted that dispute relating to transformer have been solved and they have no grievance on this point.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant further argued during hearing that inspite of several requestes from the side of the Complainant, O.P No. 1 and 2 and O.P No. 3 did not take any steps for removal of aforesaid defects. They till date did not take any steps for necessary repairing relating to the aforesaid damages. As a result, Complainant compelled to lodge complaint before the different authorities.
On careful perusal of materials on record we find that O.P No. 1-3 till date did not taken any steps for removal of defects and they did not take any steps regarding leakage of water and damage of wall and floor which were found at the time of taking the possession of the aforesaid flat by the Complainant. The aforesaid fact of O.P No. 1-3 are nothing but deficiency in service.
On perusal of record and as well as documents we find that Complainant is the consumer and Opposite Parties are the service provider.
Having regard to the aforesaid discussion it is clear before us that Complainant has able to established his grievance by sufficient documents beyond reasonable doubt and she is entitled to reliefs as per her prayer.
In the result the present case succeeds.
Hence ,
It is ordered,
That the present case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P No. 1-3 with cost of Rs. 3,000/- to be paid by O.P No. 1-3 in equal share in favour of the Complainant.
O.P No. 1-3 jointly or severally are directed to take steps regarding necessary repairing of the aforesaid flat which are pending for a long time and specifically mentioned in the petition of complaint within 45 days from this day failing which Complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
O.P No. 1-3 are further directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 10,000/- in favour of the Complainant within 45 days from this day failing which the Complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
Let a plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.
Dictated and Corrected by me
President
Member President
