Hon’ble Mrs. Soma Bhattacharjee, Member
CC/49/2018 was filed u/s 17 read with Section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 by Sri Prajjal Mukherjee against OP nos. 1 to 9. The case in a nutshell is that while the complainant was looking for residential accommodation he found out that OP no. 1 was about to construct a building situated at premises no. 109 Raja Ram Mohan Roy Road Kolkata 700008. The suit property belong to OP nos. 2 to 9 who decided to demolish the old structure on the schedule plot and erect a new building for which they entrusted the job with OP no. 1 / developer.
OP nos. 2 to 9 executed one development agreement in favour of OP no. 1 and also subsequently a Power of Attorney was executed in his favour for construction of the new building.
The complainant intended to buy one flat measuring 720 sq.ft. super built up area on the 2nd floor south east side of the said building and the OP no. 1 / developer agreed to sale the said flat, along with one open car parking space, to the complainant at a consideration of Rs. 18,72,000/-.
The complainant entered into an agreement for sale with the developer and paid an amount of Rs. 8,72,000/- to the developer / OP no. 1. This agreement for sale was executed on 26.03.2014 and in terms of this agreement the delivery of the possession of the flat was 15.03.2018. The OP / developer constructed the flat but it was incomplete in several aspect. He delivered possession of this incomplete schedule flat ot the complainant on 21.08.2017. He assured the complainant that he would complete the unfinished job and then execute the deed of conveyance in terms of the sale agreement dt. 26.03.2014.
That the OP nos. 2 to 9 being the owners of the said property are under obligation to execute and register a deed of conveyance. Hence it is not only failure on the part of OP no. 1 / developer but also OP nos. 2 to 9 to deliver service on their part and is a matter of negligence.
The complainant later came to know that the OP nos. 10 and 11 are also claiming right over the scheduled flat and hence the OP nos. 10 and 11 are also necessary party in this case. For this reason OP nos. 10 and 11 have been impleaded by the complainant by an amended complaint. The cause of action arose on 26.03.2014 when agreement for sale was executed, again when payment was made and again on 21.8.2017 when possession of incomplete flat was handed over to the complainant. The complainant has prayed for direction upon the OP no. 1 / developer to complete the unfinished work of the scheduled flat, to execute the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainants. They have prayed for compensation of Rs. 5 lakh and a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
After the case was filed notices were duly sent to OP nos. 1 to 9. However, they neither appeared nor filed W.V. So the matter proceeded ex parte against them. Later OP nos. 10 and 11 were made added parties.
Upon considering the facts of the case and evaluating the documents provided by the complainant and hearing the argument of the counsel of the complainant it transpires that the complainant is a consumer under the provisions of C.P. Act, 1986. The developer and landowner have failed in their discharge of duty in terms of the agreement with the complainant. Therefore the complainant is entitled to the relief he has prayed for.
It is ordered
The CC/49/2019 succeeds ex parte.
i) the OP no. 1 /developer is directed to complete all the incomplete works of the scheduled flat in terms of the agreement within 60 days of this order.
ii) OP nos. 1 to 9 are jointly and severally directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant in respect of the scheduled flat and car parking space.
iii) OP no.1 is directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the complainant being commensurate with the mental harassment he has undergone, within 60 days from the date of order.
If the OPs fail to comply with the order within the stipulated period, the complainant will be at liberty to put the order into execution.
Free plain copies be issued to all parties.
