Judgment : Dt.31.10.2017

Shri S. K. Verma, President.

            This is a complaint made by (1) Sumantra Sinharay, son of Niranjan Sinharay, residing at 3A 3^rd fl, 78(225) Purbachal Road(N), P.O.-Haltu, P.S.-Garfa, Kolkata-700 078, (2) Ardhendu Bhusan Dash, 3E, 3rd fl, 78(225) Purbachal Road(N), P.O.-Haltu, P.S.-Garfa, Kolkata-700 078, (3) Subrata Das, son of Swadesh Ch. Das, residing at 3F, 3^rd fl, 78(225) Purbachal Road(N), P.O.-Haltu, P.S.-Garfa, Kolkata-700 078, (4) Somnath Sinha, son of Satyabrata Sinha, residing at 1F, 1st fl, 78(225) Purbachal Road(N), P.O.-Haltu, P.S.-Garfa, Kolkata-700 078, (5) Presenjit Chakraborty, son of late Prasanta Kumar Chakraborty, residing at 4D, 4th fl, 78(225) Purbachal Road(N), P.O.-Haltu, P.S.-Garfa, Kolkata-700 078, (6) Jayanta Kumar Mondal, son of Balaram Mondal, residing at 2F, 2nd fl, 78(225) Purbachal Road(N), P.O.-Haltu, P.S.-Garfa, Kolkata-700 078, (7) Ashutosh Bhattacharjee, son of Hari Prasad Bhattacharjee, residing at 2A, 2nd fl, 78(225) Purbachal Road(N), P.O.-Haltu, P.S.-Garfa, Kolkata-700 078, (8) Ayan Majumder, son of Chandrakumar Majumder, residing at 1C, 1st fl, 78(225) Purbachal Road(N), P.O.-Haltu, P.S.-Garfa, Kolkata-700 078, (9) Joy Sarkar, son of Bijoy Krishna Sarkar, residing at 4F, 4th fl, 78(225) Purbachal Road(N), P.O.-Haltu, P.S.-Garfa, Kolkata-700 078, (10) Satyashis Banerjee, son of Shubashish Banerjee, residing at 4B, 4th fl, 78(225) Purbachal Road(N), P.O.-Haltu, P.S.-Garfa, Kolkata-700 078, (11) Dipika Majumder, son of Tushar Kanti Majumder (H)/Sudipto Roy(H), residing at 2B, 2nd fl, 78(225) Purbachal Road(N), P.O.-Haltu, P.S.-Garfa, Kolkata-700 078, and (12) Tanulal Chakraborty, son of Subodh Chakraborty, residing at 1D, 1st fl, 78(225) Purbachal Road(N), P.O.-Haltu, P.S.-Garfa, Kolkata-700 078, against Navneel Pariwar (Partnership Firm), C-601 (Bhubaneswar Apartment), 36, Palm Avenue, P.S.-Karaya, Kolkata-700 019, praying for an order against the OPs to complete all the unfinished work as early as possible as per the agreement and an order to the OP to close their office in the 2^nd floor with immediate effect and an order to the OP to pay compensation of Rs.70,000/- each and litigation cost of Rs.1,50,000/-.

            Facts in brief are that Complainants entered into an agreement with OP for allotment of parking space which is not demarcated till now. Complainants failed to mutate their names in respect of the parking space. Further, OP did not provide a diesel generator set of reputed make having sufficient capacity for lighting the common areas without consent of the Complainants, OP has opened an office in the building. Complainants requested OP to close the office but OP did not oblige and so, Complainant filed this case.

            OP No.1 did not contest the case by filing written version and so the case is heard ex-parte against OP.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed a petition for treating the complaint petition as affidavit-in-chief.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

One Xerox copy of development cum sale agreement has been filed which reveals that developer received Rs.28,25,000/-. If this is taken into Account, this Forum losses its jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. Moreover, it appears that this agreement was entered into between the parties on 15^th January, 2013. No sale deed has been filed. No prayer for handing over possession is made.

            First prayer is a direction upon the OP to complete the unfinished work. This term in itself is vague.

            Further prayer is a direction upon the OP to close the office at the 2^nd floor. However, it has not been made clear as to whether Complainants have right over the office space for which they seek closure.

            In the circumstances, we find that the Complainant failed to prove the allegations.

            Hence,

ordered

            CC/340/2017 and the same is dismissed ex-parte.