Order No. 33 Dated 06-01-2014.
The case of the complainant in short is that the complainants pursuant to an agreement dt.17.8.04 purchased a flat no.4D on the 4th floor of premises no.77A, Christopher Road, P.S. Tangra, Kolkata-46 measuring about 1195 sq.ft. (super built up area) for a sum of Rs.14,87,775/- and one covered car parking space on the ground floor of the said premises for Rs.1,80,000/-. The said agreement was substituted by another agreement dt.24.4.05 containing the similar terms and conditions, save and except that instead of the flat no.D the complainants agreed to purchase the flat no.8C on the 8th floor of the same premises. The complainant no.1 duly paid the consideration money to o.ps. The complainants shifted to the aforesaid apartment on or about July 2008 and they have been parking their car in the said premises. It was represented by o.ps. that in due course specific number of covered car parking space would be identified and allotted and till then the complainant along with other flat owners entitled to use covered car parking space. On 5.8.08 the complainants received an e-mail mentioning the names of the persons having covered car parking space. On 6.4.09 possession letter was issued to the complainant in respect of aforesaid flat and covered car parking space. In or about middle January 2010 the complainants requested to park their car in covered car parking space bearing no.3 since that position was vacant then. But the owners and developers were alleging illegally and wrongfully that complainants are not entitled to use the covered car parking space. The o.ps. were threatening the complainants and their family and for this reason the complainants lodged their complaint before the O.C., P.S. Tangra. They also stated in their complaint petition that o.ps. in collusion with each other to take more money allotted the covered car parking space to their choice. The owner / vendor / developer had provided semi automatic lift instead of automatic lift. Moreover, no CC TV camera, fire fighting equipments were installed. So there is deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. and hence the application with prayer to execute and register the conveyance in respect of the flat and specific covered car parking space in favour of the complainants and Rs.5 lakhs compensation.
O.p. nos.1 and 2, the developers and the o.p. nos.3 and 4 the land owners appeared and filed separate w/vs. O.p. nos.1 and 2 denied all material allegation interalia stated that there was a discussion with the complainants and o.p. no.2 and it was decided that in placed of covered car parking space the complainants should take open car parking space and o.p. no.1 will pay the agreed compensation of Rs.50,000/- in lieu thereof. Some other flat owners agreed to such proposal but these complainants demanded more money which o.p. no.1 refused to pay. They have admitted in their w/v that by mistake certain more covered car parking spaces have been sold. The car parking space was allotted by way of lottery in presence of flat owners since the complainants were allotted the covered car parking space therefore, o.p. nos.1 and 2 offered Rs.50,000/- as compensation. Therefore, the complainants are not entitled to get any relief and as such, the complainant case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
In their w/v o.p. nos.3 and 4 denied all allegations against them. The application is motivated, frivolous and concocted. As per agreement o.p. nos.3 and 4 the owners of the land were entitled to 19 flats and 11 covered car parking space and 8 car parking open space. Subsequently after construction being completed the o.p. nos.1 and 2 the promoters handed over to o.p. nos.3 and 4 the flats, 19 covered car parking space and open car parking space being no.1 to 6, 20 and 24. O.p. nos.1 and 2 sold the flats and car parking space from promoter allocation and therefore, o.p. nos.3 and 4 are no way connected for the wrong doing of o.p. nos.1 and 2. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed against o.p. nos.3 and 4.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It is admitted fact that complainants purchased the schedule flat in question and car parking space from o.ps. and the agreement was filed thereto. But the moot question for consideration is whether the case is maintainable before this Forum or not. The complainants prayed for registration of the flat in question of Rs.16,67,775/-, registration of the covered car parking space of Rs.1,80,000/- and compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. Therefore, the suit value for the instant case is Rs.(16,67,775 + 1,80,000 + 5,00,000) = Rs.23,47,775/- which is beyond our pecuniary jurisdiction. Hence the case is not maintainable due to want of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is dismissed on contest against all o.ps. without cost.
The complainants are at liberty to agitate their grievance before the Appropriate Forum on the self same cause of action.
