Judgment : Dt.12.10.2017

Shri S. K. Verma, President.

            This is a complaint made by one Nibir Kumar Sanyal, son of Late Hirendra Nath Sanyal, C-67, Rabindra Pally, P.S.-Bansdroni, Kolkata-700 096 against (1) Smt. Eti Mondal, w/o Sri Pratap Mondal, 46, Dhalipara, Purba Putiary, Kolkata-700 093, OP No.1 and (2) Sri Rathin Mondal, s/o Late Sudas Chandra Mondal of Chakdah Purba Putiary, Gurucharan Naskar Road, P.S.-Regent Park, Kolkata-700 093, OP No.2 praying for a direction upon the O.P.s to complete the construction of the flat in all respect alongwith common facilities, common areas and individual electric meter in the name of the Complainant and also a direction upon the OPs to handover the copy of completion certificate issued from competent authority at the time of registration of deed of conveyance and a direction for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and to pay litigation cost and any other order.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant, by virtue of a deed of conveyance registered before the ADSR, Alipore, on 13.1.2014 purchased a flat No.1B measuring approximately an area of 570 sq.ft. situated in the first floor under Regent Park P.S. OP No.2 is the owner of the plot of land and OP No.1 is the developer. In pursuance of the consideration agreed by and between the parties, the Complainant paid Rs.10,00,000/- by valid receipt for purchasing the flat No.1B and as per the terms and conditions, Complainant received the possession and the conveyance deed was also made in January, 2014. But the construction of the flat was not completed. Further, Complainant has also stated that their drainage system was not completed and individual electric meter was not installed. This fact Complainant informed to the OP No.1 by a letter dt.10.6.2015 and since the construction was not completed, Complainant filed this case.

            OP No.1 filed written version and denied all the allegations of the complaint. Further, OP No.1 has stated that the handing over of completion certificate was delayed due to whimsical and arbitrary action on the part of the municipality. OP has denied the claim of compensation and so OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

            OP No.2 did not contest the case by filing written version. So, the case is heard ex-parte against it.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant has filed affidavit-in-chief against which OP No.1 has filed questionnaire to which Complainant has filed affidavit-in-reply. Similarly, OP No.1 has filed evidence against which Complainant has filed questionnaire to which OP No.1 has filed affidavit-in-reply.

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

            On perusal of the prayer portion of the complaint petition, it appears that Complainant has sought for a direction for completion of the said flat along with common facilities, common areas and individual electric meter in the name of the Complainant. In this regard, it is submitted that Complainant received the possession before registration of the deed which was made in the month of January, 2014. It is very much surprising that since January, 2014, Complainant used the electricity from other meters and if he has done this he received the electric supply any way in a manner which is not acceptable in the eye of law. After three years Complainant has filed this case stating that his flat was not completely constructed. In this regard, it is clear that since the flat was not completely constructed why Complainant took the possession and got registration deed made in his favour and why he remained silent for about three years. Complainant has not furnished any explanation as to the delay in filing of this complaint because any complaint has to be filed within a period of two years from the date of cause of action. In the present case, the cause of action arose in the month of January, 2014 and the complaint has been filed in the month of January, 2017. So, the complaint has not been filed within the period of limitation. Furthermore, the prayer mentioned in prayer No.1 regarding the incomplete construction, common facilities, common areas it appears to be vague and ambiguous and so the prayer mentioned in prayer No.1 does not deserve to be allowed.

            In prayer No.2, Complainant has sought for a direction upon the OP for handing over a completion certificate of the premises issued by the competent authority. Here also, it appears that Complainant took the possession of the flat before more than three years and he could realize that completion certificate should be obtained for the purpose of mutation of the flat in his name after three years, here also this prayer appears to be beyond a period of limitation and at this stage it cannot be allowed. It is the duty of the Complainant to file this complaint within two years and also take steps for getting completion certificate as since the Complainant got possession of the flat and at least when the deed of conveyance was made in his favour. So, this prayer also cannot be allowed.

            Since these two prayers did not appear to be worthy of being allowed, we are of the view that compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of the Complainant is not warranted and similarly no litigation cost can be ordered in favour of the Complainant.

            Hence,

ordered

            CC/48/2017 and the same is dismissed on contest.