DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 104 of  2023

 

Sri Syamal Acharya,

S/O- Late Susil Acharya,

Rabindra Palli,

Quarter Type-IV, No. 13, 

Agartala- 799001, P.S. West Agartala,

District- West Tripura.

 

Presently residing at:-

Ujjala Apartment, 

Pragati Road, Krishnanagar, 

Agartala-799001,

P.S. West Agartala, 

District- West Tripura. .............Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

Smt. Nibedita Baidya,

W/O- Sri Samaresh Baidya,

Ujjala Apartment,

Pragati Road, Krishnanagar,

Agartala- 799001,

P.S. West Agartala,

District- West Tripura. ..........Opposite Party.

 

   

________PRESENT__________

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For  the  O.P. : Exparte.

 

 

F I N A L    O R D E R

1. This case is filed U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by Sri Syamal Acharya of Krishnagar, Agartala, West Tripura here-in-after called the “complainant” against the Smt. Nibedita Baidya of Ujjala Apartment, Krishnanagar, Pragati Road, Agartala, West Tripura here-in-after called the “O.P.” alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. 

1.1 The fact of the case in short is that the complainant purchased a flat from the O.P. by entering into an agreement with the O.P. dated 15.11.2021 for a consideration of Rs.40,00,000/- . By the said Agreement for Sale it was decided that the O.P. will complete the flat and hand over the possession to the complainant within 4 months ie.., within 15.03.2022.

1.2 On 15.11.2021 at the time of execution of the Agreement for Sale the complainant paid Rs.4,00,000/- to the O.P. as booking money. 

1.3 It was decided in the Agreement for sale that after taking booking money the O.P. will execute  registered Sale Deed in favour of the complainant and the remaining amount of Rs.36,00,000/- will be paid by the complainant in installments, but the O.P. did not take any initiative for execution of the registered Sale Deed.

1.4 It was mentioned in the Agreement for Sale  that in case the O.P. failed to prove the marketable title and possession, it shall be open for the purchaser to demand 10% of the total flat value as depreciation cost for every 15 days delay of later handover.  But the O.P. neither completed the work within the period of 4 months  nor executed the registered Sale Deed. The complainant also paid Rs.3,00,000/- for registration of Sale Deed.

1.5 As per demand of the O.P. the complainant time to time paid Rs.43,00,000/- to the O.P. within 25.04.2022.

1.6 On 03.05.2022 the O.P. requested the complainant to shift in the under construction flat and assured that the O.P. will complete the remaining work such as outside plaster of walls, installation of electrical switch gear including MCB & panel box, to protect the ceiling from rain water seepage, finishing stair case by laying tiles & railing etc. On request of the O.P. the complainant shifted in the under construction flat on 05.05.2022. There was total 42 days delay in handing over the said flat as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the Agreement for Sale and for such delay complainant is entitled to get Rs.11,20,000/-. 

1.7 The complainant paid Rs.44,50,000/- in total to the O.P. on various occasions. 

1.8 On several occasions complainant requested the O.P. to complete the remaining work but the O.P. till today did not complete those works. 

1.9 Vide letter dated 29.09.2023 & 07.10.2023 the O.P.  further demanded Rs.2,40,000/-. 

1.10 Hence, this complaint.

 

2. The case proceeded exparte against the O.P.

 

3. Complainant submitted evidence on affidavit and documents. 

 

4. Hearing argument the following points are taken up for discussion and decision:-

Decision & reasons for decision:-

5. All the points are taken up together for discussion and decision.

5.1 The complainant at the time of evidence submitted that during pendency of the case the O.P. has executed Sale Deed in favour of the complainant. Thus, the complainant has already received relief as prayed in relief no. 'D'.

5.2 Regarding relief no. 'E' the alleged remaining works, the complainant has not adduced evidence of any other witness, more particularly residents of other flat owners, to prove this episode of incomplete works. As such inspite of the fact that the O.P. has not contested the case, the complainant has to established and proved his case and discharged his burden. 

5.3 Hence, in view of the fact discussed above, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation for alleged delay in handing over the flat as the complainant did not take possession by raising objection either to the O.P. or did not file any petition before this Commission also. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any other relief like compensation as the complainant has not established a case of deficiency in service  on the part of the O.P.

6. All the points are decided accordingly in negative.

7. The case stands dismissed, however, without cost. 

8. Supply copy of this Final Order free of cost to the parties.

 

Announced.

 

 

 

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.