DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 103 of  2023

 

 

Smt. Ruma Saha,

W/O- Sri Alok Saha,

Banamalipur, Agartala,

P.O. Agartala, P.S. East Agartala, 

District- West Tripura,

Pin- 799001. …............Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

1. Sri Samit Mazumder,

S/O- Jaswanta Mazumder,

Managing Director,

M/S Eastern India Business Organisation,

Plot B1 336, Kalyani District, 

Nadia, West Bengal,- 741235.

 

 

2. Sri Kalipada Ghosh,

S/O- Lt. Tarak Chandra Ghosh,

Jail Road, Banamalipur,

P.S. East Agartala,

District- West Tripura.

Pin- 799001. ............Opposite Parties.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   ________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR(SMT) BINDU PAUL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For  the  O.P. : Exparte.

 

 

 

 

F I N A L    O R D E R

1. Smt. Ruma Saha here-in-after called 'the complainant' has filed this complaint against Sri Samit Mazumder and Sri Kalipada Ghosh here-in-after called 'the O.Ps'.

1.1 The allegation of the complainant is that the O.P. No.1, Samit Mazumder entered into a contract with O.P. No.2, Kalipada Ghosh, the owner of land measuring 0.040 acres, Mouja- Agartala Sheet No- 14, Teshsil- East Agartala, Khatian No- 178, Daag No- 2613 of Ward No-21, Agartala for construction of G + 4 storied building on the aforesaid land.

1.2 Accordingly, the O.P. No.2 executed a power of attorney in favour of the O.P. No.1 for construction of multi storied building and to sale the flats in favour of the intending purchaser. 

1.3 Consequent thereof, the complainant entered into an agreement dated 10.12.2018 with the O.P. No.1 to purchase flat No- 4-A on 4th Floor of the G+4 Building having super built area of 965 sq. ft. for a consideration of Rs.37 Lakhs. The construction was to be completed and the flat was to be delivered to the complainant within 15 months from the date of agreement. 

1.4 The total sum of Rs.37 lakhs was to be paid in 11 installments. The complainant accordingly paid Rs.35 lakhs to the O.P. No.1 in installments. That apart the complainant paid a further sum of Rs.81,303/- for purchasing tiles, bathroom fittings etc. but despite that the O.P. No.1 did not complete the construction and hand over the same to the complainant within the stipulated period. 

1.5 On this issue several meeting were held with the O.P. and last such meeting was held in the month of September, 2020 wherein the O.P. No.1 promised early completion of the work. But after doing works for 3/4 days the O.Ps stopped construction and completion of construction.

1.6 Hence, this complaint seeking relief, by way of directions to the O.P. to hand over possession of the flat and pay compensation, cost etc. alternatively to return back the advanced sum of Rs.35 lakhs and Rs.81,303/- along with compensation.

 

2. Summon were issued upon the O.Ps. The O.P. No.2, the owner of the land refused to receive the summon and O.P. No.1 i.e., the builder did not appear inspite of receiving summon. As such vide order dated 22.03.2024 the case has been proceeding exparte against both the O.Ps. 

 

3. The complainant submitted evidence on affidavit with documents, i.e., the agreement entered by the complainant with the O.P. No.1, money receipts issued by the O.P. No.1 in favour of the complainant in different installments.

 

4. Hearing argument of the complainant side the following points are taken up for discussion and decision:-

 

 

5. All the points are taken up together for discussion and decision.

5.1 The complainant by her pleading and evidence on affidavit has proved the case that the complainant entered into an agreement with the O.P. No.1 for purchasing a flat no- 4-A on the 4th Floor of the G+4 building for Rs.37 Lakhs to be built on the land of O.P. No.2. The complainant have also sufficiently proved that the O.P. No.1 has failed to hand over possession of the flat within the stipulated time and beyond that also inspite of the fact that the complainant paid Rs.35 lakhs to the O.P. No.1 along with further sum of Rs.81.303/-  for purchasing  tiles, bathroom fittings etc. 

5.2 The O.P. No.1 although has constructed 90% work of the flat but has not handed over the possession of the flat to the complainant by completing the entire works. 

5.3 The O.Ps did not contest the case inspite of receiving summon and in fact the O.P. No.2, the owner of the land refused to receive the summon. However, we  find that the complainant nowhere entered into any contract with the O.P. No.2, rather, it is the O.P. No.1 who received Rs.35 Lakhs and Rs.81,303/- from the complainant. But the O.P. No.2 is the owner of the land wherein the construction of the flats have been done. 

5.4 In case No. CC-34/2023, this Commission passed interim order with a direction to the complainant of that case to make assessment of the incomplete works and submit a report to this Commission. Consequently, the complainant submitted report of the building planner that a further sum of Rs.3,25,000/- will be required to complete the work of that flat and a further sum of Rs. 36 lakhs will be required to complete common work of that G + 4 building which is inclusive  of painting of common area, plumber, water purifier system, lift, stair cases etc. The O.Ps in both the cases are same and G + 4 building on the same land have been done.

5.5 The complainant entered into an agreement with the builder i.e., the O.P. No.1, who is a resident of Nadia, West Bengal and has left Tripura leaving the work  incomplete. But for that reason the complainant can not be deprived of  his money advanced to the O.P. No.1 and at the same time the O.P. No.2 can not be benefited for the works already done on his land and O.P. No.2 inspite of summon from this Commission has not appeared to advance his argument. Therefore, we are of the clear opinion that the O.P. No.2 is also not interested to provide justice to the complainant and has the intention of unlawful gain for the part of construction done on his land. As such the O.P. No.2 is also deficient in providing service to the complainant.

6. All the points are decided accordingly.

7. In the result, it is ordered that the O.P. No.1 shall hand over the possession of the flat after completing the same as per the agreement within 30 days from today and shall pay the sum of compensation for Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant. If the O.P. No.1 fails to hand over vacant possession of the flat to the complainant within 30 days the complainant shall take possession of the incomplete flat and in such eventuality the O.P. No.1 and 2 are hereby injuncted not to disturb  possession of the flat. And the O.P. No.2 shall execute Sale Deed  in favour of the complainant and the O.P. No.1 shall pay compensation for Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant for his deficiency in service.

8. The case stands disposed of. 

9. Supply 3 copies to the complainant. Complainant shall send each copy to the O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 by post or hand over in person. 

 

Announced.

 

 

 

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

DR(SMT) BINDU PAUL

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.