DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 319 of  2022

 

Sri Abhijit Paul,

S/o Sri Naresh Chandra Paul,

 

Presently  residing at:-

Manjyoti Residency,

Bhati Abhoynagar(West ),

Near Indira Gandhi Statue,

Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,

P.O. Abhoynagar,

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

 

-VERSUS-

 

Sri Subhradeep Majumder,

S/o Sri Bakul Kanti Majumder,

Govt. Circuit House, Agartala,

P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. - N.C.C.

District- West Tripura- 799006.  ...........Opposite Party.

 

 

    __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  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 Complainant : Sri Kishore Kumar Pal,

  Sri Hara Kishore Bhaumik,

  Learned Advocate.

 

For the Opposite Party : None Appeared.

 

 

 

ORDER  DELIVERED  ON:  18.04.2023.

 

F I N A L    O R D E R

Sri Abhijit Paul, S/o Sri Naresh Ch. Paul of Bhati Abhoynagar, Agartala (here-in-after referred to as 'the Complainant') set the law in motion by filing the complaint petition against Sri Subhradeep Majumder, S/o Sri Bakul Kanti Majumder, Agartala (here-in-after referred to as 'the O.P.')  u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2. The Complaint's case is summarized as under:

2.1  The Complainant entered into an Agreement of Sale (in short 'the Agreement') on 10.04.2018 with the O.P. for purchasing a 2 BHK flat with a consideration amount of Rs. 27.84 lac.

2.2 The entire amount of Rs.27.84 lac was paid by the Complainant by way of installments.

2.3 As per the Agreement, the flat was to be handed over within 18 months after obtaining approval from Agartala Municipal Corporation. But the O.P. failed to confirm the marketable title and delivery of possession of the flat within the time limit.

2.4 Thereafter, at the persuasion of the O.P., the Complainant took possession of the incomplete flat in the month of November, 2020. It was assured verbally by the O.P. that he would complete the remaining works within 2 months.

2.5 Since that time, the O.P. had been evasive over his verbal promise being made to complete the unfinished works assigning one reason or the other.

2.6 Finally, on 21.08.2021, a Registered Deed of Sale was executed with an explicit clause (Clause-6) outlining that the O.P. shall complete the unfinished works within 3 months from the date of this agreement.

2.7 But again the O.P. failed to comply with the agreed term to complete the work within 3 months and left the work unfinished till filing of the instant complaint petition.

2.8 Unfinished works, as left, are installation of lift, construction of boundary wall and front gate, GCI sheet over roof-top, plinth-floor finishing, installation of electric transformer, internal electricity work, fire safety system etc.

2.9 Due to non-completion of the unfinished works, the Complainant suffered on various counts like health hazards, vulnerable risk to safety and security, damaging of electronic tools etc.   

2.10 Being suffered so, the Complainant filed this complaint seeking a relief of Rs.8.80 lac for the damages and hazards being suffered and confronted.

2.11 Hence this case.

 

3. Despite being given adequate opportunities to participate in the proceedings of the case, the O.P. failed to submit written version. 

4. The Complainant filed his evidence on affidavit as P.W.1 and one Sri Sukamal Deb, S/o Late Sukumar Deb has submitted his evidence on affidavit as P.W.2.

 

5. The following points for the instant case fall for consideration:

5.1 Whether the O.P. has breached the contract and provided deficient service?

5.2 If so, what would be the reasonable compensation?

 

6. The Complainant argued the case. The O.P. did not participate at the argument stage too.

6.1 The major points of the argument set forth by the Complainant are as under:

6.2 It is pleaded by the Complainant that the O.P. breached the contract by violating the relevant clauses of the Agreement to complete construction work within 18 months. Furthermore, the O.P. insisted the Complainant to take possession of the unfinished flat and, accordingly, on good faith the Complainant took possession of the flat. The O.P. assured orally to complete the remaining works within 2 months which they could not respect and fulfill.

6.3 Again on 21.08.2021 a Registered Deed of Sale was executed binding upon the O.P. to complete the unfinished works within 3 months. Yet again, the O.P. failed to accomplish the works.

6.4 Due to vital works of the building, as a whole, remained unfinished, the Complainant has been suffering serious health hazards, compromising the risk of safety and security, experiencing damages of his electronic items/ tools etc.

7. We have travelled over the materials available on record and evaluated them meticulously. Our views, thereof, are as under:

7.1 The O.P., notwithstanding being given sufficient opportunities, failed to submit the written version. As a result, the case proceeded exparte against the O.P.

7.2 The O.P.’s inability to represent the case leads us to take up a reasoned view that the O.P. does not have any point to defend the allegations being leveled against him in terms of non-completion of the works.

7.3 It is a matter of fact that the Complainant paid the entire consideration amount of R.s18.60 lac and subsequently took possession of the incomplete flat at the insistence of the O.P.

7.4 It transpires from the clause-6 of the Registered Deed of Sale executed on 21.08.2021 that the O.P. shall install the lift and complete the other remaining works of the building within 3 months. But, for the expression of ‘the other remaining works’, the clause has not described anything to classify and specify the balance works remained as unfinished. We are, thus, unable to identify exactly the other balance works that are yet to be completed, barring the work of the installation of the lift.

7.5 It is essentially true that non-installation of lift in the G+3 storied building has been causing tremendous difficulty to the Complainant, who is an occupier of his flat in the second floor of the building. It is also true that the work of installation of the lift in the building has been kept as pending since 21.8.2021. Therefore, the flat, in question, until such a long period time, has been left as non-conducive for use. 

7.6 We, therefore, hold that the O.P. has caused contractual damages to the Complainant by providing deficient service in terms of not completing the work of installation of the lift in the building. The O.P. is, therefore, liable to compensate the consequential loss thereto.  At the same time, we are constrained to draw any view for passing order over a broad and vague expression ‘the other remaining works, mentioned in the clause-6 of the Agreement dated 21.8.2021.  

 

8. In the result, the complaint petition succeeds in part. We, therefore, direct the O.P. to pay a compensation of Rs. 75,000/- to the Complainant within 2 months from the date of this order. Failing to pay, the amount shall bear interest @ 9 % P.A. from the date of this order till payment.

8.1 We further order that the O.P. shall install the lift in the building within 2 months from the date of this order. Failing to execute the work within the specified time, the O.P. shall be liable to pay a compensation @ Rs. 300/- per day to the Complainant from the date of this order till the date of full and final execution of the work of installation of the lift in the building.   

9. All the points are, accordingly, decided. The case, thus, stands disposed of. Supply copy of the order to both the parties free of cost.     

 

Announced.

 

 

 

 

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA: AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA: AGARTALA

 

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA: AGARTALA.