Judgment : Dt.11.12.2017
Shri S. K. Verma, President
This is a complaint made by Smt. Geeta Venkadakrishnan, wife of H. Venkadakrishnan, Director of Hope Kolkata Foundation, 39, Panditiya Place, P.S.-Gariahat, Kolkata-700 029, and Smt. Gouri Halder (Ghosh), wife of Subendu Halder of 13,H/1, Panditiya Road, P.S.-Gariahat, Kolkata-700 029 against Sri Tapan Kayal, son of late Bijoy Kayal, residing at C-25/18/12, Ananda Nagar Dakshin Behala Road, P.S.- Thakurpukur, Kolkata-700 061 praying for execution and handing over car parking space mentioned in the schedule of the complaint petition and praying compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-.
Facts in brief are that Complainant No.1 wife of H. Venkadakrishnan, Director of Hope Kolkata Foundation, 39, Panditiya Place, P.S.-Gariahat, Kolkata-29 and Smt. Gouri Halder, wife of Subhendu Halder, jointly bought a flat at C-75/18/12, Anandanagar Dakshin Behala Road, P.S.-Thakurpukur on the 2nd floor being flat No.B measuring about 744 sq.ft. super built up area having its municipal premises No.1009 on the strength of deed of conveyance registered on 27.2.2013. After registration of the property Mr. Tapan Kayal, OP, handed over the flat to the Complainants but refused to hand over the garage space of 120 sq.ft., which is mentioned in the deed and plan. OP stated that garage space will be handed over after completion and did not hand over it. In mid June, 2015, when Complainant called OP, he stated that he does not have any garage space, whereas 125 sq.ft. garage space is mentioned in the deed of conveyance on 11.12.2015. Complainant’s lawyer sent a notice to the OP but no purpose was served and so, Complainant filed this case.
OP filed written version and denied the allegations of the complaint. Further, OP has stated that possession of the car parking space was received by the Complainant on 24.2.2013 and this case has been filed in 2017 and so this is barred by limitation. OP has denied that he did not hand over the car parking space and so he has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief to which OP filed questionnaire to which Complainant filed affidavit-in-reply. OP filed a petition praying for treating the written version as evidence and the prayer was allowed. To this Complainant filed questionnaire to which OPs filed affidavit-in-reply.
Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
Main prayer of the Complainant is a direction upon the OP for handing over the car parking space mentioned in the schedule of the deed of conveyance. In this regard, it appears that schedule B-1 in the deed of conveyance is a garage of 120 sq.ft. This conveyance deed was made by the OP in favour of the Complainant on 20.2.2013 and in the deed of conveyance, it is clearly mentioned that the possession of car parking was handed over to the Complainants.
This complaint has been filed after about four and half years from the deed of conveyance. There is no explanation forthcoming as to why such a delay was caused in filing this complaint. Further, it appears that on 24.2.2013 OP wrote a letter to the Complainant wherein it is clearly mentioned that Complainant is sole and absolute owner of the flat and car parking. However, it appears from one letter dt.9.12.2015 that Complainants wrote to OP for possession of the car parking.
As such, it is clear that after a long gap of four years this Forum is not in a position to direct OP to handover possession of the car parking.
Moreover, it appears that the sale transaction took place between Complainants and OP and there is no question of deficiency in service by the OP.
Hence,
ordered
CC/18/2017 and the same is dismissed on contest.
