West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/269/2015

Smt. Sumitra De, W/O Late Milan Kumar Dey. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Aloke Nath Bhadra, S/O Late Bhupendra Nath Bhadra. - Opp.Party(s)

Susanta Kumar Choudhury

01 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , JUDGES’ COURT, ALIPORE KOLKATA-700 027

 

C.C. CASE NO. _269   OF ___2015____

 

DATE OF FILING : 10.6.2015     DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:_01.03.2016 __

 

Present                        :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :  Smt.  Sharmi Basu                    

 

COMPLAINANT                  :  Smt. Sumitra De, w/o late Milan Kumar Dey, 88, Subodh Park, Bansdroni, Kolkata – 70.

                                                 AND  Miss Maitrayee De d/o late Milan Kumar Dey, 88, Subodh Park, Bansdroni, Kolkata – 70.

                                                AND   Miss Malabika De, late Milan Kumar Dey, 88, Subodh Park, Bansdroni, Kolkata – 70.

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                                :     Sri Aloke Nath Bhadra,s/o late Bhupendra Nath Bhadra of 14/3, North Road, Jadavpur, Kolkata – 32.

________________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

 

            Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member

             In a nutshell the case of the complainant is that she entered into a joint venture agreement with the O.P on 4^th day of August, 2015 to develop premises no.88, Subodh Park, Roynagar, municipal premises no.73, Subodh Park, P.S. Bansdroni, Kolkata – 70 . Complainants also executed a registered power of attorney in favour of the O.P . But the O.P failed to construct, erect the building and merely handed over possession letter dated 4.6.2009 for the entire second floor comprising two flats measuring 1156 sq.ft. O.P also failed to hand over the completion certificate, occupancy certificate to the complainant till date . O.P also has not delivered two car parking spaces to the complainant in terms of the Joint Venture Agreement. Hence, this case praying for allotting two car parking space in their favour, compensation of Rs.1 lac ,litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- etc.

            The O.P contested the case by filing written version denying all the material allegations leveled against him contending inter alia that it is categorically mentioned in the agreement that construction of the building shall be started after obtaining sanctioned plan and accordingly they have completed the building and handed over possession of the owners’ allocation to the complainants. It is the case of

 

 

 

the O.P that it was decided that if 35% of the FAR is not covered by the two car parking spaces the O.P shall pay for remaining area and it was agreed that the O.P shall pay Rs.33000/- to the complainants and O.P is still ready to pay the said amount to the complainants . The O.P also states that completion certificate was submitted to the owner’s association. O.P prays for dismissal of the case.

Points for Decision

1. Whether the complainant is a Consumer or not.
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps or not.
3. Whether the complainant is eligible to get relief as prayed for partly or fully.

Decision with reasons

            All the points are taken together for the sake of convenience. In the instant case as per the Joint Venture Agreement O.P is entitled for developer’s allocation ,where the owner of the premises is the complainant. Thus here “Developer’s allotment” should be considered as “Consideration for the construction work of the Building in question”.  Therefore, O.P is a service provider and complainant is a consumer under the purview of C.P Act, 1986 under section 2(1)(d)(ii) and Section 2(1)(d)(o) of the C.P act respectively.

From the record it is crystal clear that the complainants  have not been allotted two car parking spaces in their favour as per Joint Venture Agreement dated 4.8.2005. It is settled principle of Law that being developer/service provider O.P is duty bound to hand over the car parking spaces in question to the complainant within the stipulated period but being failed to do so, the O.P has committed in rendering services and due to his inaction and deficiency in service on the part of the O.P complainants have to suffer not only huge financial loss but also tremendous mental agony and harassment and they are entitled to be compensated by the O.P.

            Thus all the points are discussed and all are in favour of the complainants and the case succeeds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

            Hence,

                                                                        Ordered

That the case is allowed on contest against the O.P.

The O.P is directed to hand over the two car parking spaces as per Schedule A of the complaint petition strictly following the Joint Venture Agreement dated 4.8.2005 in question and to pay compensation of Rs.60,000/- and cost of Rs. 5000/- to the complainants within 30 days from this dale.

Let a plain copy of Judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rule.

 

                                    Member                                                                                   President                                

 

Dictated and corrected by me

 

 

                        Member

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The judgement in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

 

                                   

            Ordered

That the case is allowed on contest against the O.P.

The O.P is directed to hand over the two car parking spaces as per Schedule A of the complaint petition strictly following the Joint Venture Agreement dated 4.8.2005 in question and to pay compensation of Rs.60,000/- and cost of Rs. 5000/- to the complainants within 30 days from this dale.

Let a plain copy of Judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rule.

 

                                    Member                                                                                   President