Sri Goutam Kumar Mishra, S/O. Sri Prafulla Kumar Mishra. filed a consumer case on 05 Jun 2015 against M/S. Sunirman Products Pvt. Ltd. A private Limited Compnay. in the South 24 Parganas Consumer Court. The case no is CC/483/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 08 Jun 2015.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , JUDGES’ COURT, ALIPORE KOLKATA-700 027
C.C. CASE NO. _483_ OF ___2014___
DATE OF FILING : 25.9.2014 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 5.6.2015__
Present : President : Udayan Mukhopadhyay
Member(s) : Mrs. Sharmi Basu
COMPLAINANT : Sri Goutam Kumar Misra,s/o Sri Prafulla Kumar Misra of Vasundhara-III, Flat no.GM, Ground Floor, 223, Najrul Pally, Mahamayatala, P.S. Sonarpur, Kolkata – 84.
-VERSUS -
O.P/O.Ps : M/s Sunirman products Pvt. Ltd. 115, Haridevpur Dhalipara, P.O R.C. Thakurani, P.S. Thakurpukur, Kolkata – 104, represented by Managing Director namely Kazi Najiboor Rahman of 115, Haridevpur Dhalipara, P.O R.C. Thakurani, P.S. Thakurpukur, Kolkata – 104.
________________________________________________________________________
J U D G E M E N T
Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President
This is an application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 filed by the complainant against the O.P on the ground that he has purchased a flat from the O.P and possession was delivered and deed of conveyance has already been registered in the year 2004 being Deed no.05132. But inspite of several requests and visit physically , the O.P failed and neglected to hand over the completion certificate issued by the Rajpur Sonarpur Municipality. It has claimed that reminder notice was also sent through Registered Post with A/D on 12.7.2013. Hence, this complaint with a prayer to direct the O.P to hand over the completion certificate and payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost.
The O.P is contesting the case by filing written version.
It is the short case of the O.P that the case is barred by misjoindedr of necessary party and barred by limitation and denied further allegation leveled against him.
It is the positive case of the O.P that complainant is very much negligent to obtain completion certificate and in this regard necessary order is required from the Ld. Forum. It is further stated that possession was delivered long before. So, a letter informing for possession certificate cannot create further limitation in the matter. Hence O.P prays for dismissal of the case.
Points for decision in this case is whether there is any deficiency on the part of the O.Ps or not.
Decision with reasons
It appears from the complaint case that deed of conveyance was registered in the year 2004 and possession was also delivered definitely on the date of registration in the year 2004 or earlier. We find that the contention of the Ld. Advocate of the O.P cannot be brushed aside because the landlords were not made parties and the entire episode was made when the landlord was party in the earlier complaint case. So, the contention of the Ld. Advocate of the O.P that this case suffers from misjoinder of necessary party cannot be ignored., Apart from that , possession was delivered long before two years of filing of the case. So, complainant should file this case within two years from the date of possession.
However, at the time of argument good sense is prevailed by the O.Ps and according to their written version in para 12 that he is trying to obtain completion certificate have been proved by submitting the completion certificate in the name of Dr. Rupa Sen and other and Piku Ghosh Chowdhury and others. Probably they are the landlord and developer. So, the problem of complainant will be solved in respect of the completion certificate. Apart from that , complaint case suffers from hopelessly barred by limitation as well as mis-joinder of parties .
One thing has come to the knowledge of this Forum during the course of argument that the original landlord already expired ,who has given a power . But the legal heirs ought to have been made parties in this case but inevitable did not happen.
However, the submission of completion certificate of the Building Plan no.1051/CB/28/18 dated 5.1.2013 clearly solved the problem of the complainant when it has mentioned in the last line of the completion certificate issued by the Rajpur Sonarpur Municipality on 31.1.2015 that approved Completion Plan no.1850/Comp/CB/30/15 dt. 31.01.2015 .
Although complainant failed to prove the deficiency in service in light of the observation made hereinabove, but still then complainant’s problem already solved.
In this circumstances, we do not propose any compensation and litigation cost against the O.Ps.
Hence,
Ordered
That the application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 is disposed of in light of the observation made hereinabove.
Complainant is at liberty to obtain certified copy of the completion certificate in the name of Dr. Rupa Sen and other and Piku Ghosh Chowdhury and others and its annexures i.e. the expenditure incurred by the O.P to obtain completion certificate.
Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the parties free of cost.
Member Member President
Dictated and corrected by me
President
The judgement in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,
Ordered
That the application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 is disposed of in light of the observation made hereinabove.
Complainant is at liberty to obtain certified copy of the completion certificate in the name of Dr. Rupa Sen and other and Piku Ghosh Chowdhury and others and its annexures i.e. the expenditure incurred by the O.P to obtain completion certificate.
Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the parties free of cost.
Member Member President
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
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.