DATE OF FILING                    :     25-12-2013.

DATE OF S/R                            :      27-01-2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     08-09-2014.

1.      Sri Pratap Kumar Roy,

      son of Promod Kumar Roy,

2.      Sri  Swapan Kumar  Ghosh,

son of Sri  Sushil Kumar  Ghosh,

3.      Sri  Some Nath Bhattacharjee,

son of late Sourendra Prasad Bhattacharjee,

4.      Sri  Subhankar  Chatterjee,

son of Sri Tarun Chatterjee,

5.      Smt. Sabita Sarkar,

wife of Sri Tushar Kanti Sarkar,

6.      Smt. Paromita Samaddar,

daughter  of late Pankaj Kumar Samadar,

7.      Sri Pallab Samaddar,

son of late Pankaj Kumar Samaddar,

minor represented by his elder sister,

Smt. Promita Samaddar ( Sl. No. 6 ),

all are residing at ‘Sonar Bangla’ lying and

situated at Bally Municipal holding no. 40, Chandi  Charan Jyuotir

Bhushan Lane, P.O. & P.S. Bally, District – Howrah,

PIN – 711 201.-------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANTS.

-          Versus   -

1.      Sri Mritykunjoy Ghosh,

Son of late Manindra Nath Ghosh,

Residing at ‘Sonar Bangla’

of 40,  Chandi Charan Jyotir Bhushan Lane,

P.O. & P.S. Bally, District -  Howrah,

PIN  – 711201.

2.      M/s. Modern Construction Concept Co.,

having office at 63/1/A/2,  Sita Nath Bose Lane,

P.O. Salkia, P.S .  Golabari, District – Howrah,

PIN -  711 106.

3.      Sri Baleshwar Nath Verma,

son of late Paresh Nath Verma,

residing at 9/5, Bhairab Dutta Lane, P.O. Salkia,

P.S.  Golabari, District – Howrah,

PIN – 711 106.

4.       Sri Sambhu Nath Paul,

son of late Sachinandan Paul,

residing at 63/1/2, Sita Nath Bose Lane, P.O. Salkia,

P.S.  Golabari, District – Howrah,

PIN – 711 106. ----------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.               The instant case was filed by complainants U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainants have  prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to make over the completion certificate to the complainants with respect to the building as mentioned in the schedules from A to F and to pay compensation of Rs. 5 lacs together with litigation costs as the o.ps. in spite of repeated requests did not pay heed. Hence the complaint.   

2.               The o.p. no. 1  in his  written version contended interalia that the instant complaint has been filed to harass the o.p. So it should be dismissed.

3.                  The o.p. no. 3 in his written version stated that o.p. no. 1 executed a power of

attorney in favour of the o.p. no. 4 with respect to the suit flats and as such the o.p. no. 3 has no responsibility for making over the completion certificates to the petitioners.

4.                  The o.p. no. 4 in his written version stated that he is the only building

contractor. So it is not his responsibility to supply the completion certificate. So the complaint should be dismissed. 

5.                  Upon pleadings of the  parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainants  are  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

6.                  Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. As the complainants

have been in possession of the suit flats no question of limitation does arise in view of the latest position of law.

7.                           Admittedly the complainants are in possession of the suit flats;  admittedly the completion certificates were not made over to the complainants by the o.ps. Unless the completion certificates are not provided, the mutation work cannot be effected.  The pleas that there was no agreement for supply of the same is too fragile to merit acceptance. Non supply of the same amounts to gross deficiency in service.

              Therefore, we are of the view that this is a fit case where the prayer of the complainants shall be allowed. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.

      Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 446 of 2013 ( HDF 446  of 2013 )  be and the same is   allowed on contest with  costs  as against  the O.Ps. 

      The O.Ps. be directed to  supply the completion certificates with respect to the suit flats to the complainants  within 30 days from the date of this order

      The o.ps. do  pay jointly or severally Rs. 10,000/- to the complainants as litigation costs.

      No order as to compensation.

      The complainants are at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (    T.K. Bhattacharya  )                                              

  President,  C.D.R.F., Howrah.