By :  SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT

                 The case of the petitioners brief is that the OP of this case is the developer / promoter of a land measuring 9.02 decimals at village Town Padumbasan PO & PS. Tamluk , Dist Purba Medinipur owned by one Golam Mostafa of same  address. The OP constructed an apartment namely Sohale & Sohan Apartment. The complainants made an agreement with the OP and Golam Mostafa for purchase of a flat in the year 2012.  On 25.09.13 the OP made a deed of conveyance by a registered deed No . 5647 and 5648 at the office of the ADSR Tamluk and gave possession of the flat with electricity and water supply.  At the time of registration the OP made promise to provide electricity and water supply within a month of registration of the deeds of conveyance, but till now he did not provide the water supply or electricity in the said flat. On 22.04.16 the complainant no 2 wrote a letter to the OP for the said purpose and lastly on 23.05.16 complaints wrote a letter with the same object of providing    water supply and electricity in the flat but the OP did nothing. As such the complainants did not enter into the said flat for residential purpose and have been facing financial problem and mental agony and have been constraint to file this case for unfair practice of the OPs.

The OP has filed written version and WNA and has contested the case denying most of the averments of the complaint. They contended that the case is not maintainable as it is filed on baseless story. It is the specific case of this OP that after completion of the flat this OP and Golam Mostafa  made over possession  of the flat to the complainants on 25.09.13 by registered deed No. 564 and 5648 at ADSR Office, Tamluk with electricity and water supply connection and the case has been filed intentionally to harass the OP and has prayed for dismissal of the case with costs.

          The only point to be considered in the case is whether the complainants are entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.

                                                                                        Decision with Reasons.

          We have carefully gone through the complaint and the written version of the parties and the documents filed by the complainants in support of their case.

          Admittedly the complainants entered into an agreement with the OP and Golam Mostafa  for purchasing  the disputed flat and admittedly the complainants got possession  of the flat and also the flat has been registered in their names on 25.09.13.  The only dispute here is whether the OP had any liability for providing electricity and water supply in the flat of the complainants. According to the complainants the OP did not give any electric connection and water supply connection to the flat in spite of several requests made by the complainants and he demanded the said service to the OP by letter dated 23.05.16 lastly. When in spite of that the OP did not provide the said service in the flat the complainants have filed this case.

          We have carefully gone through the copy of the agreement filed by the complainants,  entered into between the parties and from the page 9 para 7 of said agreement it appears  that complainants and their legal heirs  were given benefits  of right of use of common path and also to take water and electric connection over the star case to the disputed flat and also given right to sewerage through pipe in the drain of ground floor.  It is also stipulated therein that complainants will bear the expenses of maintenance of electricity in the bath room. Both the complainants and OPs signed the agreement and the clauses of the agreement are binding upon the complainants.

 Though on application of the complainants before this Forum one commission was taken and the commissioner submitted his report to the effect that wiring and water pipe line is completed in the flat room and water is available in all the points such as a) Basin’s supply, b) Shower’s supply and c)   All the taps supply. One   reservoir (syntax) is kept on the top of the room for domestic purpose for supply of water to owner’s room and there is no commercial water supply connection all over the whole building. The ld commissioner also reported that   there is electric wiring all over the flat room, but there was no light bulbs, fans and any other electric goods. There was also no electricity connection of this said flat room. There is a main electric meter that is domestic purpose and running condition.

From the report of the ld commissioner it appears that in spite of having wiring all over the flat there is no electric connection in the flat though as per letter of the complaints through speed post addressed to the OP no.1 Sri Tanmay Para it appears that an additional amount of  Rs. 6500/- has been given to the OP in the year 2012 for giving electric connection.

According to the complainants the registered agreement was entered into by all the parties for providing electricity and water supply connection in the disputed flat and as per report of the commissioner appointed by this ld. Forum  there is water supply and also electric wiring in the flat but there is no  electric connection in the flat of the complainants. The OP/ developer has the liability to provide electric connection in the flat as it is an essential service in a residential flat.

Hence, it is

ORDERED

          That the C.C No. 290 of 2016 be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the Opposite party.

          The OP is directed to ensure electric connection in the flat of the complainants within one month from the date of  this order. The OP is also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2000/- and litigation cost of Rs 3000/-  to the complainants within one month from the date of this order ie, the OP will be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 100/- per day as punitive charge which will be payable to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

       Let copy of judgment be supplied to both the parties free of costs.