| Complaint Case No. CC/77/2018 | | ( Date of Filing : 12 Jul 2018 ) |
| | | | 1. SMT. DEBJANI CHAKRABORTY | | W/O SRI SUDIP CHAKRABORTY,R/O OLD BUS STAND, SUBHAS PALLY, WITHIN WARD nO.18,S.M.C, P.O & P.S.- SILIGURI,DIST-DARJEELING. |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. S.P. DEVELOPERS | | PARK PALACE, AC MARKET, B-22, 2ND FLOOR, RAJANI BAGAN, HILL CART ROAD, SILIGURI,DIST-DARJEELING,PIN-734001. | | 2. SRI SHARMISTHA SAHA, | | W/O SRI KRISHNA SAHA, PARTMER OF S.P. DEVELOPERS, R/O SUKANTA NAGAR, AUTO STAND, WARD NO. 38, S.M.C., P.O- RABINDRA SARANI, P.S.- BHAKTINAGAR, DIST-JALPAIGURI,PIN-734006. | | 3. SRI TRIBHUWAN SINGH | | S/O LATE JAI KRISHNA SINGH, PARTMER OF S,P, DEVELOPERS, R/O M.N. SAHA SARANI, PRADHAN NAGAR,DIST-DARJEELING, PIN-734003. | | 4. SMT. HIRU RANI DAS | | W/O LATE DULAL PROSAD DAS, R/O SARBA PALLY, BEHIND HIMALAYA KANYA ABASAN, WARD NO. 42, S.M.C., P.O- SEVOKE ROAD, P.S.- BHAKTINAGAR, DIST-JALPAIGURI,PIN-7340061 |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| Final Order / Judgement | To-day is fixed for admission hearing. Ld advocate for the complainant filed hazira. Heard the Ld advocate. Perused the complaint and documents thereto. The case of the complainant is in brief, that he purchased a flat from the OPs on One of the conditions that lift facility with 24 hours power back-up by a Generator will be provided. But the condition was not fulfilled by the OPs. The complainant had further to pay Rs.35,000/- over and above the consideration money towards the cost of installation of a electric transformer. But said transformer has not also be installed, hence, this case. Nowhere in the complaint, the amount of consideration money has been mentioned. But it is seen from the registered Deed of conveyance attached with the complaint as document, that the consideration money amounts to Rs.26,91,000/-. The value of the flat as per Deed added with the compensation as claimed in the instant complaint totally exceeds the pecuniary limit of this District Forum which cannot be entertained. As such we are of the considered view that on this backdrop of pecuniary jurisdiction this case is not a deserving one to be admitted as per provision of Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. As a logical corollary, this instant is not admitted. | |
