The instant case is filed by one Sri Shibnath Saha against Sri Prasanta Mallick, praying for a direction upon the OP to accord various reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.

Case of the Complainant, in a nutshell, is that, he is the owner of the schedule property.  He entered into a development agreement with the OP on 10-03-2010 for making construction of a G+3-storied building and also executed a registered Power of Attorney in favour of the OP for this purpose.  From the very beginning, the Complainant asked, albeit in vain, the OP to comply with the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement and also to construct the said building as per KMC Rules and Regulations and also as per National Building Code.  It is stated that the OP has already received due amount and delivered flats to the concerned purchasers. Complainant also, on several occasions, requested the OP to complete the unfinished works but the OP has paid no heed to such requests.  It is claimed that the Complainant already spent a huge sum of money for completing the Owners allocation amounting more than Rs. 60,000/- and out of extreme compulsion, he has taken his own possession out of the owners allocation in the said building on 13-06-2014, but till date, the OP left several works unfinished.  So, the Complainant has been compelled to revoke the Power of Attorney by sending a letter on 14-10-2014.  Thereafter, the Complainant made several requests to the OP to remove the defects caused by him, including internal structural defects in the roof of the building, but till date OP has not responded positively.  Against such backdrop, Complainant filed the instant case.

On the basis of above facts, the complaint case was admitted and notice duly served upon the OP.  However, the OP preferred to skip the present proceedings.  Hence, the case was heard ex parte.

We are to consider, whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

Decision with reasons

          It is not in dispute that the Complainant has already got possession of the flat in question.  It further transpires from the photocopy of a Minutes of a tripartite meeting organized by the Dy. Asst. Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices dated 18-01-2016 that the Complainant has taken possession of the flat in the year 2013 and the OP also handed over a copy of the completion certificate issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to the Complainant during the course of said tripartite meeting.  It also appears from the documents on record that a Deed of Conveyance has already been executed in between the parties on 10-01-2014.

Against such backdrop, we are of view that the cause of action ceased to exist with the execution of the Deed of Conveyance by and between the parties. 

It is claimed by the Complainant that he has already spent more than Rs. 60,000/- for completing the Owners allocation.  However, he has not filed any documentary proof to establish such claim.  Further allegation of the Complainant is that the roof of the building is suffering from structural defect.  However, no expert report/opinion is put forth to support such contention.  Another grievance of the Complainant is that the OP left several works unfinished. No credible evidence is, however, furnished by the Complainant to substantiate it.

Be that as it may, on a thoughtful consideration of the barrage of allegations raised by the Complainant, it appears to us that whether there remains any substance in such allegations of the Complainant or not, that can only be determined through examination of great deal of evidence – both oral and documentary, also it would invariably give rise to complicated question of law and fact.  As we know, proceedings before the Consumer Fora are essentially summary in nature and adjudication of issues which involve complex factual and legal questions, Consumer Fora should ideally exercise hands off policy and relegate such matters to Civil Court.

We may in this case refer to a decision of three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Synco Industries v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and Ors., reported in I (2002) CPJ 16 (SC) : 2002 (1) SCALE, in which Hon’ble Court observed that where complicated questions of law and facts are involved, Forum under the Consumer Protection Act may not be a proper Forum to dispose of such a case in summary fashion. It was also observed that a Civil Court would be the right place to decide the issue involved in that case. We feel that in the present state of law and the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court itself and the aforesaid circumstances, we cannot take any other view.

For the aforesaid reasons, we feel that this Forum should not entertain this complaint at all. The Complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate Civil Court and he may be entitled to the benefit of the observations of the Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC) : 1995 3 SCC 583 for the purpose of exclusion of time spent before this Forum.

The complaint stands dismissed, accordingly.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that CC/214/2016 be and the same is dismissed ex parte against the OP.  No order as to costs.