Date of Filing : 30/01/2018

Date of Judgement : 04/10/2023

Sri Sudip Niyogi, Hon’ble President

                                                              Brief Facts

Complainant being the owner of Premises No. 7 Baishali Park, P.S. Bansdroni, Kolkata 700 084 had engaged the OPs to construct a multi-storied building on certain terms and conditions as contained in the development agreement entered into between them on 6/7/2012.  As per the terms of the agreement, complainant would get a flat of 825sq.ft. built up area which is the entire first floor along with non-refundable amount as stated in the agreement.  On taking the possession of the said flat, after construction, complainant found several defects and deficiencies namely – painting of outside wall of the building and of the main gate not done, huge rubbish and waste materials were stored on the roof top.  Electric meter was also not provided by the OPs.  So, complainant was compelled to file this complaint praying for a direction upon the OPs to complete the unfinished work in the building, to pay Rs.2,50,000/- for installation of electric meter, compensation and cost of litigation etc. 

Both the OPs filed their respective written version and they prayed for dismissal of the instant complaint. 

Complainant and OP 1 filed evidence.  No evidence was given by OP 2.  BNA was filed on behalf of the complainant and OP 1. 

Point of consideration is, whether the complainant is entitled to any relief(s).

                                                            FINDINGS

On going through the materials on record and the documents, including the development agreement, it is found that complainant had entered into a development agreement on 6/7/2012 with the OPs for raising a multi-storied building on their land as mentioned in the said agreement.  The allocations of the owner and the OPs as developer were also specified therein.  Complainant is found to have made certain allegations as to unfinished work in the said building. 

We also found, one Engineer Commissioner was appointed for holding inspection on certain matters and on inspection, the said Engineer Commissioner submitted his report before this commission.  It is found that at the time of inspection work none on behalf of the OPs was present.  However, the Engineer Commissioner completed his commission work after proper identification of the building by the complainant.  The said report reveals that he did not find any colour painting on the outside wall of the entire building and also found black colour (primer) on the main gate without any specific colour.  He also observed one electric meter was installed on the southern wall of the ground floor.  He found broken boundary wall on the front gate in the left side.  He also observed that, at the time of inspection, he was told that complainant had cleaned the rubbish wastes which are deposited on the roof top. 

Now, among the unfinished works as alleged by the complainant, it is found that painting of outside wall of the building and also the main gate is yet to be done by the developer.  Complainant claimed that electric meter was not provided by the developer as per agreement and the cost of Rs.1,65,250/- was the installation charge.  The Engineer commissioner’s report revealed that he found electric meter in the building.  It is not in the evidence in details as to how the said electric meter was obtained at the building.  Complainant in his petition of complaint as well as in his evidence did not specify anything regarding this, whether he had spent the cost for installation of the electric meter or that he, along with other flat owners, spent money.  Not a single scrap of paper was produced by the complainant to show that they had actually spent the amount for getting installation of the electric meter.  So, no order can be passed on this count.  But on consideration of the materials on record, we opined that a direction should be given upon the OPs who are the developers, to paint main gate and the outside wall of the entire building.  So, the instant case should be allowed with cost.

Accordingly, it is

                                                ORDERED

That the instant complaint is allowed against both the OPs on contest.

Both the OPs are directed to do the painting works of the outside wall of the entire building and also the main gate.

Apart from this, OPs are directed to pay Rs.8,000/- towards cost of litigation.

Both the OPs are directed to comply with the order as aforesaid within a period of 45 days from the date of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

Dictated and corrected by me

PRESIDENT