Tripura

StateCommission

A/24/2017

Tripura Housing and Construction Board - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shyamalima Apartments Welfare Society - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Bibek Banarjee

03 Jul 2017

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

Case No.A.24.2017

 

 

1. Tripura Housing and Construction Board,

Represented by its Chief Executive Officer,

Gorkhabasti, Agartala,

P.S. New Capital Complex,

P.O. Kunjaban, Pin-799006,

District - West Tripura.

… … … … … Appellant/Opposite Party.

 

 

1. Shyamalima Apartments Welfare Society,

Represented by the Secretary,

New Capital Complex, Agartala,

District - West Tripura.

… … … … … Respondent/Complainant.

 

 

Present

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mrs. Sobhana Datta,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Ch. Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

 

 

For the Appellant:                                           Mr. Bibek Banerjee, Adv.

 

 

For the Respondent:                                  Mr. Parth Pratim Bhattacharjee,

(Member of the Society and flat owner).

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:   03.07.2017.

 

 

J U D G M E N T  [O R A L]

 

U.B. Saha,J,

The instant appeal is filed by the appellant Tripura Housing and Construction Board (hereinafter referred to as opposite party no.1) against the Judgment dated 20.04.2017 in Case No. C.C. 102 of 2016 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala whereby and whereunder the District Forum directed the opposite party no.1, Tripura Housing and Construction Board to bear the expenses and ensure the water supply to the reservoir of the flat owners after treatment of the underground water till completion of project and also directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the ‘Shyamalima Apartments Welfare Society’ i.e. the respondent-flat owners.

2. Today the matter is fixed for admission hearing.
3. As agreed to by the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal at this admission stage.
4. Heard Mr. Bibek Banerjee, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant-opposite party no.1 as well as Mr. Partha Pratim Bhattacharjee, Executive Committee Member of the ‘Shyamalima Apartments Welfare Society’ as authorized by the respondent-complainant.
5. Facts of the case in short are that the opposite party no.1 sold near about 182 flats and those 182 flat owners formed a society namely, ‘Shyamalima Apartment Welfare Society’ (hereinafter referred to as complainant). As there was dispute regarding water supply and boundary wall, the complainant filed a complaint petition before the District Forum for a direction to the opposite party no.1 to run the existing deep tube well and IRP for providing clean and safe water to the flat owners of the ‘Shyamalima Apartment Welfare Society’ and to make a payment of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest @18% per annum for deficiency in service.
6. The opposite party no.1 contested the case stating, inter alia, that as per the terms and condition, the flat owners have to bear the expenses of the water treatment plant and the opposite party no.1 Housing Board never assured to anybody to construct 500 numbers of flat as assured by the complainant. It is also stated that the construction of boundary wall is going on and the same is going to be completed.
7. The Ld. District Forum after considering the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record passed the impugned judgment. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has filed the instant appeal. 
8. Appellant Housing Board appeared through its Ld. Counsel. Mr. B. Banerjee and the complainant ‘Shyamalima Apartments Welfare Society’ appeared through Mr. Partha Pratim Bhattacharjee, a flat owner and executive member of ‘Shyamalima Apartments Welfare Society’ as authorized.
9. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the appellant Housing Board and the representative of the Shyamalima Apartments Welfare Society, Mr. Bhattacharjee i.e. the complainant. Both of them have submitted before this Commission that after passing of the impugned judgment, there was a discussion between two parties and the disputes were amicably settled between them on the following conditions:-

1. The appellant housing board will hand over the IRP in good condition after overhauling the same.
2. One standby water pump will be provided by the appellant-Housing Board to the complainant before handing over the IRP and deep tube well.
3. The complainant ‘Shyamalima Apartments Welfare Society’ (owner of the flats) has already taken the electricity connection for the IRP and the deep tube well and the bill will be paid by the society for future electricity consumption and the appellant Board shall deposit the electricity bill for the IRP and deep tube well for the period before the electricity connection is taken by the society. The appellant Housing Board will fulfil the condition No.1 & 2 within three months from today.

10. As the disputes have been settled between the parties on the basis of the above conditions, the impugned judgment is modified to the extent that the Housing Board, the appellant herein, will handover the IRP in good condition after overhauling the same and one standby pump will be provided till handing over the IRP and deep tube well and also make payment of pending bill against the electricity connection i.e. before the electricity connection was taken by the complainant, Society within three months from today. The aforesaid direction is given as agreed to by the parties.

          In the result, the appeal is partly allowed modifying the impugned judgment to the extent as stated above.

Send down the records to the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura MEMBER State Commission Tripura PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura