DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 45 of  2023

 

 

1. Sri Dilip Kr. Sarkar,

S/O- Lt. Digendra Chandra Sarkar,

Ramnagar Road No. 4,

P.O. Ramnagar, P.S. West Agartala,

District- West Tripura,

Pin- 799002.

 

Presently residing at:-

NBRC Para,

Near Bash Bazar,

P.O. A.D. Nagar,

P.S. A.D. Nagar,

Agartala, West Tripura,

Pin- 799003.

 

2. Sri Nilanjan Bardhan,

S/O- Lt. Gouranga Ch. Bardhan,

Ramnagar Road No.4,

P.O. Ramnagar, P.S. West Agartala,

District- West Tripura,

Pin-799002.

 

Presently residing at:-

Ramnagar Road No.5,

P.O. Ramnagar, P.S. West Agartala,

District- West Tripura,

Pin- 799002.

 

3. Smt. Anima Bardhan,

W/O- Lt. Gouranga Ch. Bardhan,

Ramnagar Road No. 4,

P.O. Ramnagar, P.S. West Agartala,

District- West Tripura,

Pin- 799002.

 

Presently residing at:-

Ramnagar Road No.5,

P.O. Ramnagar, P.S. West Agartala,

District- West Tripura, Pin-799002.

 

(Both the Complainant 

Nos. 2 & 3 are the 

Legal Heirs of 

Lt. Gouranga Ch. Bardhan) …..Complainants

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

Sri Subhradeep Majumder,

S/O- Sri Babul Kanti Majumder,

Circuit House,

P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. N.C.C.

District- West Tripura,

Pin- 799006. ..........Opposite Party.

 

   

________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL,

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. : 

 

 

 

 

F I N A L    O R D E R

1. Sri Dilip Kr. Sarkar, Sri Nilanjan Bardhan and Smt. Anima Bardhan, here-in-after called the 'Complainants' have filed this complaint against Sri Subhradeep Majumder here-in-after called the 'O.P.' 

1.1 The allegation of the complainants is that the complainants being the owners in possession of land measuring 0.0310 acres and 0.0270 acres classified as Bastu and Viti class of land of Khatian No. 290 plot No. 1879/46206 (P) corresponding to R.S. plot No. 1048 of Khatian No. 1051 recorded in R.S. Plot No. 1049 in total 0.0580 acres of land. The complainants entered into an agreement with the O.P. vide No.1-4578 dated 12.11.2020 and also conferred the Power of Attorney to the O.P. vide No. IV-247 dated 12.11.2020 for construction of G + 4 multi storied building at Ramnagar Road No.4 within 24 months with a grace period of 6 months.

1.2 The O.P. as on date has not completed the work and in fact except execution of work of few numbers of underground piles has done no work at all. Due to the demolition existing hut on the agreement land the complainants now residing in rented houses at a rent of Rs.10,000/- per month which the O.P. agreed to pay to the complainants. 

1.3 On 22.03.2023 the complainants served Legal Notice upon the O.P. which the O.P. replied on 25.04.2023 but without any further development.

1.4 Hence, this case. 

 

2. The O.P. submitted written objection denying the allegations of the complainants and alleging that  one of the party to the agreement died within one year of the execution of the agreement. As such the O.P. could not obtain permission for the proposed building from the Agartala Municipal Corporation. After starting the construction works the O.P. used to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainants but as the complainant no. 2 and 3 could not obtain Municipal permission and permission from RERA Authority the O.P. was bound to stop payment of monthly rent also.

 

3. The complainants have submitted evidence on affidavit with documents lime agreement with the O.P. Power of Attorney.

 

4. The O.P. although submitted written objection but ultimately stopped contesting the case. Hence, vide order dated 28.05.2024 the case has been proceeding exparte against the O.P. meaning thereby, the O.P. neither submitted evidence on affidavit nor participated in the argument of the case. 

 

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

 

 

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

6.1 On perusal of the agreement and Power of Attorney and written objection submitted by the O.P. we find that there is no dispute regarding execution of the Agreement between the parties and Power of Attorney executed in favour of the O.P.  It is a fact that agreement was entered in between Sri Gouranga Ranjan Bardhan i.e., the Predecessor of complainant no. 2 & 3 and Sri Dilip Sarkar i.e., the complainant No.1 in one part and the O.P. in another part and similar is the Power of Attorney.

6.2 According to the O.P. due to the death of Gouranga Bardhan the present complainant no. 2 & 3 did not take permission of the Municipal and RERA as such, work could not be done by the O.P. The O.P. at the same breath stated that he started the work. Hence, until and unless there was Municipal permission or permission of the RERA how the O.P. started work is not understandable and not believable also. More so, Gouranga Bardhan, the predecessor of complainants no. 2 & 3 died after about a year of the agreement. Further without evidence on affidavit the pleadings pleaded by the O.P. in written objection also can not be said to have been proved. 

6.3 On perusal of the reply of the Legal Notice delivered to the O.P. in Paragraph – 2 we find that Gouranga Ch. Bardhan, the Predecessor of complainant no. 2 & 3 obtained building permission of the Municipal  Corporation vide no- W16SB202102872 but due to the death of Gouranga Bardhan on 26.09.2021 said plan is still lying in the Municipal Office. 

 

6.4 On perusal of the agreement in article VI, i.e., the owners obligation, sub-clause 3, we find that it is the developer who shall comply with all the formalities required by Agartala Municipal Corporation and other statutory authority, being governmental and other authorities and shall comply with requirements for any sanction, permission, clearance, or approval subject to full cooperation of the owner of the land. Therefore, it is the developer who had to take initiative for approval etc. and the complainant No.2 and 3 being the successor in interest of Gouranga Ch. Bardhan, can not be said to have not extended their cooperation to the O.P. as the O.P. has not satisfactorily pleaded any such fact of alleged non-cooperation. The O.P. also never issued any letter/ notice to the complainants alleging such non-cooperation.

6.5 Hon'ble Supreme Court in IREO Grace Realtech Private Limited Vs. Abhishek Khanna and Others reported in 2021 Vol. 3 SCC 241 was pleased to expound that a Consumer Commission in case of unfair trade practice declare an agreement to be void and to discontinue such agreement as an incident of power to direct for removal of deficiency in service and also directed the O.P. to pay compensation.

6.6 What necessarily  follows is that in the case at hand, the O.P. has neither complied with the terms of agreement nor contested the case by submitting evidence on affidavit and also has taken some unsustainable plea in his reply to the Legal Notice as well as written objection submitted before this Commission, as such, the O.P. is guilty of deficiency in service as well. 

 

7. All the points are decided accordingly against the O.P. 

 

8. In the result, it is ordered that the O.P. shall pay a lump sum amount of Rs.1 lakh to the complainants which is inclusive of monthly rent which was agreed to be paid within a period of one month, otherwise it shall carry interest @ 7.5% P.A. from today till the date of actual payment and shall pay a further amount of Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost. 

8.1 The agreement  dated 12.11.2020 executed in between the Complainant no. 1, Dilip Sarkar and Gouranga Ch. Bardhan, since deceased, the predecessor in interest of complainant no. 2 and 3 in one side and the O.P. in another side and the Power of Attorney dated 12.11.2020 are hereby declared as void and in-operative.  

9. The case stands disposed off.

10. Supply copy of this Final Order free of cost to all the parties.

Announced.

 

 

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

DR(SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA.

 

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA.