This is a complaint made by one Bechuram Paul, son of Late Paresh Chandra Paul, residing at 53A Garcha Road, P.S.-Gariahat, Kolkata-700 019 against (1) Sigma Shelters Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office at 553, Hemanta Mukherjee Sarani, Kolkata-700 029, OP No.1, and (2) Animesh Ganguly @ Avinash Ganguly, sole proprietor of Sigma Shelters Pvt. Ltd., residing at 16/2, Hindusthan Road, P.S.-Gariahat, Kolkata-700 029, OP No.2, praying for a direction upon the OP to complete the incomplete works and direction upon the OP to owner’s allocation of 40% and further direction for car parking space and security room and also to make provision of drinking water and drainage system and a direction to handover the completion certificate and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.60,000/- as litigation cost.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant is the landlord. On 29.9.1993 Complainant became owner of 3 cottahs 12 chitak 23 sq.ft land. Complainant in need of money and having no other alternative sources of money intended to develop a building on the said land. So, Complainant entered into an agreement for development of building with one Sigma Shelters Pvt. Ltd. having its office at Hemanta Mukherjee Sarani, Kolkata-700 029, it was agreed between the parties that the owner will be entitled 40% built up area. The development agreement was signed between the parties.

            As per the agreement, the developer was liable to handover the possession of 40% of the owner’s allocation within 15 months from the date of execution of the agreement i.e. 13.9.2011. After construction of the building said developer has given a letter on 15.4.2013 that he is giving possession of the flat No.2 only, but did not handover the possession of 40% of the area.

 As per the sanction plan there is a provision of small room for security personnel which is common for all. Developer did not take any interest to give the possession and also to complete the incomplete work as per the agreement. Thereafter, Complainant wrote two letters, but of no use. So, Complainant filed this case.

            OP No.1 & 2 filed written version where they have denied all the allegations of the complaint. They have also stated that the allegations made in the complaint are baseless. Further, they have stated that the Complainant, as per agreement they have to deliver the vacant possession of the land occupied by him and after taking advance did not comply the terms and conditions. So, OP has prayed for dismissal of this complaint.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief wherein he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition. Against that, OP filed questionnaire. Thereafter, OP they filed evidence against which Complainant filed questionnaire and filed affidavit-in-reply.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

            First relief which Complainant has made is prayer for completion of the incomplete works.

 In this regard, on perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that Complainant has mentioned that there is no provision of drinking water and there is no drainage system. There is nothing on record to establish as to whether provision of drinking water and drainage system is available or not. Ld. Advocate for OP submitted at the time of argument that provision of drinking water is available and drainage system is also available. So, this prayer cannot be allowed.

            Second prayer by Complainant is a direction upon OP for owner’s allocation in respect of partial allocation.

            In this regard, it appears that this prayer is vague because Complainant has not mentioned as to how much allocation he has received and how much is due.

            Third prayer is for a direction upon the OPs for car parking space and provision of security room.

            There is no report of the local inspection commissioner to establish that car parking space was not provided to the Complainant. Further, Complainant has prayed for a direction upon the OP to handover the completion certificate to the owner in respect of the said building.

            In this respect, there is nothing to establish as to whether OPs did not handover the completion certificate. Moreover, completion certificate has to be issued by Kolkata Municipal Corporation. No doubt it is the duty of the developer to obtain the completion certificate.

            As such, we are of the view that the allegations made in the complaint petition appear to be vague and ambiguous. So, Complainant is not entitled to any relief.

            Hence,

ordered

            CC/263/2016 and the same is considered and dismissed on contest.