West Bengal

StateCommission

FA/81/2010

Miss Satarupa Dewanji. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Ira Chatterjee. - Opp.Party(s)

1. Mr. Gouranga Gupta Roy, 2. Mr. Souvik Das.

18 May 2010

ORDER


31, Belvedere Road, Kolkata - 700027

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST BENGAL

BHAWANI BHAWAN (Gr. Floor),
FA No: 81 Of 2010
(Arisen out of Order Dated 07/01/2010 in Case No. 191/2008 of District South 24 Parganas DF, Alipore)
1. Miss Satarupa Dewanji.D/O Sri Asish kumar Dewanji, D-686, Lake Gardens PS. Lake, Kolkata- 700045. being represented by her father and Constituted Attorney Sri Asish Kumar Dewanji. ...........Appellant(s)

Versus
1. Smt. Ira Chatterjee.W/o Sri Monojit Chatterjee. proprietress of I.C. Construction, 1, Haltu School Road. PS. Kasba, Kolkata- 700078. Dist. 24-Pgs (South).2. Sri Dipak Kumar Banerjee. S/O Late Sailendra Nath Banerjee. 56 J, Kankulia Road. PS. Gariahat, Kolkata- 700019. ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE :
HON'BLE JUSTICE ALOKE CHAKRABARTI PRESIDENTMRS. SILPI MAJUMDER Member
PRESENT :1. Mr. Gouranga Gupta Roy, 2. Mr. Souvik Das., Advocate for the Appellant 1 Mr. Sourav Chatterjee. Mr. Prabir Basu. Mr. Jyoti Prakash Chatterjee., Advocate for the Respondent 1

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

No. 4/18.05.2010.

 

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

 

Appellant through Mr. Gouranga Gupta Roy, the Ld. Advocate, Respondent No. 1 through Mr. Prabir Basu, the Ld. Advocate along with Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, the Ld. Advocate and Respondent No. 2 through Mr. Jyoti Prakash Chatterjee, the Ld. Advocate are present.  Appellant files BNA.  Mr. Gupta Roy, the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant – Appellant advances two arguments against the impugned order stating that the direction for imposing liability of 50% cost of revised sanctioned plan on the Complainant without there being any pleading or evidence of any alteration of the structure or of any revised plan.  The next contention of Mr. Gupta Roy is regarding pump room alleging that the same has not yet been constructed.  Mr. Basu, the Ld. Advocate for the Developer agrees there was no revision of plan.  With regard to pump room Mr. Basu states pump room is yet to be constructed and the developer is agreeable to complete the construction of the pump room within one month.  The Ld. Advocate for the owners also do not have any further contention. 

 

Therefore, it appears that there is no difference between the parties as regards actual relief relating to construction of the pump room and execution and registration of the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Complainant by the O.Ps.  We do not find that direction for payment of Rs.50/- per day upon the developer is justified on any material available.  Mr. Gupta Roy also does not show any material in support of such finding.

 

In the circumstance by consent of parties the impugned order is modified only to the extent that the direction of liability on the Complainant towards 50% cost of preparation and sanction of revised plan, is set aside.  The direction of payment of penalty of Rs.50/- per day on the O.P. No. 1 is also set aside being not supported by any material and as also agreed by the parties.  O.P. – developer agrees to complete the execution and registration of the Deed of Conveyance within a period of one month from today and also to obtain and furnish Completion Certificate to the Complainant within a period of three months from the date of this order.  Appeal is stands disposed of by consent of parties as aforesaid.

 

PRONOUNCED :
Dated : 18 May 2010

[HON'BLE JUSTICE ALOKE CHAKRABARTI]PRESIDENT[MRS. SILPI MAJUMDER]Member