Tripura

West Tripura

CC/58/2016

President, Senjuti Flat Owners Welfare Society. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Biswajit Roy. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.A.R.Barman, Miss. Leena Sarkar.

06 Feb 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC- 58 of 2016 

Senjuti Flat Owners Welfare Society,
Registration No.6842,
C/O- Flat No. 101,
Roy Heritage Apartment,
30 Gedu Miah Maszid Road,
Shibnagar, Agartala, 
Represented by the 
President of the Society.    ....…..…...Complainant.

            VERSUS

Sri Biswajit Roy,
S/O- Lt. Binoy Bhushan Roy,
Flat No.3032,
Prestige Wellington Park Apartments,
Gangamaa Circle, P.O. Jalahalli,
Bangalore- 560013.         ............Opposite parties.

                 __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

    For the Complainant    : Sri Amitabha Ray Barman,
                  Miss Leena Sarkar,
                  Advocate.
                     
    For the O.P. No.1        :  Sri Ranjan Bhattacharya,
                   Sri Basudeb Chakraborty,
                   Srinivas R.
                      Advocates.

            JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:   06.02.2017

J U D G M E N T

        This case arises on the application filed by the President Senjuti Flat Owners Welfare Society. Case is filed against one Biswajit Roy, Seller of the Flat. Petitioner's case in short is that he along with other purchaser and the members of the association  purchased the flat with car parking facilities and convenient facilities. On May 2014 responsibility for the maintenance of the flat was taken over by the flat owners and a registered Society namely 'Senjuti Flat Owners Welfare Society' was formed. Many inconvenience were detected. Generator service was not provided. All the papers relating to lift not handed over. Drawing of concealed electric wiring of the building was not provided. Separate electric meter was not installed. O.P. owner cum developer of the flat informed that the building plan is obtained for G + 3 storied RCC and permission for such construction was given by Agartala Municipal Council. Petitioners flat owners came to learn with shock  that actually Agartala Municipal  Council  given permission for G + 2 storied building plan not G + 3. Without permission G + 3 building was constructed and sold out to the petitioner. In the Sale Deed it is also written that G + 3 storied building. In such a position the petitioners are under anxiety as Agartala Municipal Council may take action  for illegal construction by the O.P. due to deficiency of service  and unfair trade practice. Petitioner suffered a lot and prayed for direction and compensation. 
        
2.        O.P. Biswajit Roy appeared, filed W.S denying the claim. It is stated that Senjuti Flat Owners Welfare Society was not formed as per registered Act. The Flat Owners had given undertaking that they have received the possession of the flats on satisfaction of the good condition there. G + 3 storied buildings was constructed by the O.P. and permission also obtained with the parking floor. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner was baseless and liable to be rejected. 

3.        On the basis of contention raised by the parties following points cropped up for determination;
        (I) Whether the facilities as advertised by the O.P.  was not provided to the petitioner or not?
        (II) Whether the petitioner were entitled to get compensation  as claimed?

4.        Petitioner side produced Photocopy of 5 Deeds, copy of Registration Certificate of the Society & copy of building plan. Petitioner also produced statement on affidavit of one Haradhan Debnath.        

5.        O.P. on the other hand produced original copy of Gmail by Biswajit Roy, photocopy of attachment letter, Photocopy of  Roy Heritage Flat Owners Welfare society, photocopy of hand over of the Roy Heritage, photocopies of other letters, advocate's notice, other letters, and also affidavit of Biswajit Roy.

6.        On the basis of all the evidence on record we shall now determine the above points.
        
Findings and decision:

7.        Learned advocate for the O.P. argued that the petition is not maintainable as because petition is filed by the Spouse of the Flat owners. The complaint was filed by the the spouse of the flat owners not by the actual flat owners. So they are not consumers and will not come under the purview of flat owners at all. We have gone through the papers relating to memorandum of Association and application given to the registrar of the society. The application is made by all flat owners, Keya Deb, Krishanu Chakraborty, Ashmita Saha, Manju Saha, Uma Choudhury etc. The spouse of the flat owners also included as a member of the society and petitioner is the spouse of the flat owner and appointed as the President of the Society. Rules and regulations of the Welfare Society also prepared. It was formed to self sufficient and respectful community. It is registered under 'Society Registration Act'. Such registration was not challenged and we do not find any reason to support the contention of the learned advocate that the society was illegally formed. Being occupier of the flat spouse can be made members of the society along with the flat owners. So being the President this petition is filed by the petitioner, Haradhan Debnath. Petition, therefore, is maintainable.

8.        The contention of the O.P. was that the papers and other documents in respect of property was not handed over as because the society was not formed rightly. It is stated in Para 9 that the fact of formation of the society was beyond the knowledge of the O.P. through RTI. So, it has come to knowledge on 06.02.16.  He should hand over all goods and plan views to the flat owners association. Failure to do so is definitely a deficiency of service. The generator service was supposed to be provided by the flat owners at the time of handing over to the flat owners. But as the society was not formed so it was not handed over. After formation of the society the maintenance matters should be looked after by the society  only. Generator service, lift service other matters is to be maintained by the society personally. But the O.P. the seller of the flat should have hand over all the documents and related  matters to the society authority for running the facilities of the flat.  It is admitted that the O.P. informed the petitioner flat owners that permission for G + 3 RCC building was given by Agartala Municipal Council. We have gone through the building permission proposed  construction of G + 3 storied building.  Map was prepared for G + 3. But the municipality while giving permission have given  permission for G + 2 storied RCC parking flat for this building.  No permission given for G + 3 storied RCC building as per letter dated 13.08.10. After that O.P. by registered deed dated 17th August 2013 sold out the flat to the flat owners. He was aware that permission was given for G + 2  storied building as he sold out flat in the year 2013 after 3 year. It is cearly stated that permission given for G +2  storied building for 'Roy Heritage' along with ground floor. This is clearly unfair trade practice. The seller should have disclosed the correct picture about the sold item. But he failed to do so. In such a situation the purchaser would be in trouble as because permission from the municipality not taken for G + 3 building. Though they have purchased the same building on payment. O.P. also admitted and stated in the written statement that he had constructed room for him this is also not disclosed to the flat owners at the time of sale. After sale of the flats the flat owner is not supposed to stay inside the flat occupying an extra room in the roof which is beyond the plan preferred by the municipality. This is also unfair trade adopted by the O.P. 

9.         We have gone through the correspondence letter, advocates notice, attachments letter all photocopies. It is found that the flat owners requested Biswajit Roy builder and proprietor to hand over the flats with all necessary papers. They informed about the registration and finally by the letter dated 20.03.15 Biswajit Roy informed the president of the flat owners association that his service will be rendered from 31st march. He requested to take over the management of the affairs of the apartment. He claimed some amount also. Thereafter he informed about the service available such as water treatment system elevator, Kirloskar DG Set, etc. Finally those were not handed over. This is also deficiency of service by the O.P. From the careful scrutiny  of the evidence on record and documents as produced we found that the petitioners flat owners suffered because of the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice of Biswajit Roy, O.P. 

10.         We therefore, direct the O.P. to hand over all documents papers, plan of the flat to the society owned by the flat owners and their spouses. We also direct the O.P. to take  step for getting permission of G + 3 flat from the Agartala Municipal Council. The illegal construction and room made by him over the roof of the flat should be removed. We also direct the O.P. Biswajit Roy to pay compensation amounting to Rs.4 lakhs to the petitioners society for his deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Both the points are decided accordingly.

11.        In view of our above findings over the two points this case is partly allowed. We direct the O.P. Biswajit Roy to step for handing over all documents relating to the facilities of the flat to the society of the petitioners. We also direct him to obtain the permission from Agartala Municipality for G + 3 flat and pay compensation to the petitioners society Rs.4 lakhs. We also direct O.P. to remove the illegal construction on the roof. The amount is to be paid  within one month. If not paid it will carry interest @ 9% P.A.                    
           
                           Announced.

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA    SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.