DATE OF FILING                    :     06-12-2013.

DATE OF S/R                            :      13-01-2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     29-04-2014.

Shri Suvajit  Chakraborty,

son of Sri Tarun Chakraborty

of 17/11, Umesh Banerjee Lane, P.S . Shibpur,

District –Howrah,

represented by his father as the constituted attorney

v iz. Tarun  Chakraborty, son of late Lakshman Chandra  Chakraborty,

residing at 17/11, Umesh  Banerjee Lane, P.S. Shibpur,

district – Howrah.--------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.         Sk. Mona,

            son of Sk. Noor Mohammad,

            residing at  Santragachi Saheb Quarter, P.s. Jagacha,

            District – howrah,

            PIN – 711104.

            .

2.         Sri  Sukanta Banerjee,

            son of late Kanailal Banerjee,

            residing at 17/11, Umesh Banerjee Lane, P.S.  Shibpur,

            District – Howrah.------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P   R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.               Complainant. Shri Suvajit  Chakraborty, duly represented  by his father Shri  Tarun  Chakraborty, the constituted attorney of the complainant, by   filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. no. 1 to complete the pending works such municipal water connection, roof door, main gate door, roof drain pipe etc., to pay Rs. 30,000/- on account of finishing the stair case work, jalchad, meter room etc., along with Rs. 36,900/- as the charges   towards buying water from ‘Bhari’, to refund Rs. 50,000/- which was taken by o.p. no. 1 from the mother of the complainant arbitrarily and to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- in total towards compensation for causing mental pain, agony, physical harassment along with Rs. 25,000/- as litigation costs and other orders as the orders as the Forum may deem fit and proper. 

2.               Brief facts of the case is that complainant purchased one flat from o.p. no.1 on payment of total amount of Rs. 8,81,050/- paid on different dates at the premises no. 17/11, Umesh Bannerjee Lane, P.S. Shibpur. As per agreement for sale dated 15-10-2009 complainant was to get 815 sq. ft. flat @ Rs. 1,025/- sq. ft. vide       Annexure P2 series collectively. But at the time of execution of   sale deed, complainant  got  only 805 sq. ft. Accordingly the o.p. no. 1 should have received Rs. 8,25,125/- in total as consideration value of the said flat. But o.p. no. 1 forcefully took an extra  amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the mother of the complainant on 05-04-2010 and on 22-06-2010 vide  Annexure dated 22-06-2010 running page no. 51. Complainant has annexed all money receipts vide Annexures P3 collectively. It is further stated by the complainant that in the agreement for sale dated 15-10-2009, it is clearly written that o.p. no. 1 shall make the arrangement for boring water and for that complainant was required to pay Rs. 15,000/- to o.p. no. 1 which was paid by the complainant. But o.p. no. 1 failed to arrange for the boring water and on 22-06-2010, a supplementary agreement was entered into by and between the  parties in which o.p. no. 1 agreed to arrange for municipality water line connection in the said flat vide Annexure P4  series collectively running page 53. However, on 26-07-2010, the o.p. no. 1 executed and registered  the flat in favour of the complainant  keeping many works pending vide Annexure P5 collectively. And even after repeated requests, o.p. did not complete the pending work and finding no other alternative, complainant had to  finish many works incurring an expenditure of  Rs. 30,000/-  paid from his pocket vide Annexures P6 series collectively, running pages 73-76. But is  stated by the complainant that as per supplementary agreement date 22-06-2010, o.p. no. 1 should have arranged for municipal water line connection which is that most   important of all. And due to non availability of drinking water, complainant’s  parents are to buy water from Bhari paying Rs. 30/-  per day since their possession, that caused severe mental pain and physical harassment for which complainant’s father was required to be admitted to hospital for chest pain etc. vide Annexure P7 series collectively. And in absence of ‘ Bhari’, complainant’s sick father is required to go to the local tube-well to bring drinking water in spite of his physical incapability. Complainant made several requests but o.p. no. 1 paid no heed to that.  Being  frustrated and finding no other alternative, complainant filed this instant petition praying for the aforesaid reliefs.

3.               Notices were served upon o.p. no. 1 and proforma o.p. . Both o.ps. appeared and filed written version. Accordingly, case heard on contest.

4.               Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.               Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the written version filed by o.p. no. 1 & proforma o.p. no. 2. Complainant has not sought for any relief from the proforma o.p. no. 2. Accordingly, the case does not lie against proforma o.p. no. 2.

6.               From the written version, it is crystal clear that o.p. no. 1 has not constructed any underground reservoir as per the agreement for sale dated 15-10-2009 entered into between o.p. no. 1 and the complaint vide schedule ‘D’ point no. ( ix ) of Agreement dated 15-10-2009. The construction of underground water reservoir is of utmost importance with respect to a multistoried building. In place of that o.p. no. 1 has installed one tube-well with hand pump within the premises of the building. It is proved that complainant’s parents are residing in the flat in question. Moreover, in the supplementary agreement dated 22-06-2010, o.p. no. 1 again promised that municipal water line connection shall be done within the flat. But o.p. no. 1 totally neglected to comply with that part of their job. Even some important works were pending as per the supplementary agreement dated 22-06-2010. And complainant has filed the detail of all works which were done by himself. Complainant made repeated requests to complete those works but o.p. no. 1 paid no heed to that. It is also to be noted that proforma o.p. no. 2 has contended that all the flat owners including themselves are happy with the supply of water in the said building. Now, we are to consider the age of the complainant’s parents and father is suffering from heart problem. In this situation, it is very difficult for him to bring water from the tube-well installed by o.p. no. 1.

7.    It is our common experience that at the time of raising the building, one underground water reservoir is constructed at the ground floor under the staircase and municipal water is stored in that reservoir as well as overhead reservoir and it is  supplied to different flat owners by water pump. O.p. no. 1 has committed a basic mistake by way of not constructing that very underground reservoir but took extra money for that purpose. Now, there is no extra space, where the underground reservoir can be constructed. So, it has become a severe constructional defect for which o.p. no. 1 is solely liable and responsible. And this kind of defect cannot be  removed at this stage when all the flat owners have already been residing in their respective  flats.   O.p. no. 1 should not have been so much careless in doing his job. He has received money from the complainant, so he was required to do the job as per satisfaction of the complainant. Now complainant is compelled to buy water from outside during the entire future. And we find o.p. no. 1 has created a perennial problem for the complainant.  Accordingly, the case succeeds on merit against o.p. no. 1.  

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 426  of 2013 ( HDF 426 of 2013 )  is dismissed without costs against proforma o.p. no. 2 and succeeds on contest against the o.p. no. 1 with costs.

      That the  O.P. no. 1 is  directed to pay an amount of  Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order i.d., the entire amount of Rs. 60,000/- shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till actual payment.

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.            

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

      (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                  

  Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.