Judgment : Dt.4.1.2018
Shri S. K. Verma, President
This is a petition of complaint made by Sri Goutam Dey, son of Sri Debendra Nath Dey, residing at 208/1, Parui kancha Road, P.S.-Behala, Kolkata-700 061, against Sri Swapan Roy, son of Sri Biswanath Roy, residing at 42F/1, Bishalaksmitala, P.S.- Behala, Kolkata-700 060, holding the OP liable for unfair trade practice and praying for a direction on OP to handover the car parking space along with original title deed, sanction building plan, completion certificate, possession letter and cost of Rs.75,000/- to the Complainant as per the Development Agreement.
Facts in brief re that Complainant as a land-owner entered into an agreement with the OP for development of 2 cottah 42 sq.ft. against which the Complainant will be entitled to get one complete flat measuring about 800 sq.ft. super built up area on the top floor and one car parking space measuring about 100 sq.ft. at the ground floor in the newly constructed building.
As per the Complainant although the Developer/OP handed over the possession of the flat in the month of September, 2016 but the OP has failed and neglected to hand over the (i) car parking space, (ii) original documents title deed, (iii) sanction building plan, (iv) completion certificate, (v) possession letter, (vi) monthly rental of Rs.2,500/- for alternative arrangement in spite of several requests to the OP.
Thus the Complainant files this complaint against OP for not providing necessary services and doing unfair trade practice.
Notice was served upon the OP. But, the OP did not turn up. So, the case was fixed for ex-parte hearing vide order No.9 dt.21.3.2017.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed a petition for treating the complaint as affidavit-in-chief.
OP did not appear in any of the proceedings and finally the case was heard ex-parte against OP on 10.4.2017.
Main points of determination:
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer under OP?
- Whether the OP has done unfair trade practice?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
Decision
Point No.(i) – In this regard on perusal of the records, we find that the Complainant has submitted a Development Agreement but it appears that, it has not been signed by the OP.
So, due to non-signing on behalf of the OP, Complainant is not entitled to any relief.
Point No.(ii) – In this regard, since the development agreement was not signed by the OP, so, the question of unfair trade practice does not arise.
Point No.(iii) When the development agreement is not signed by the OP the question of allowing of prayer of the Complainant does not arise.
Hence,
ordered
CC/604/2016 and the same is dismissed ex-parte without any costs and direction upon OP.
