DATE OF FILING                    :     30-08-2013.

DATE OF S/R                            :      20-09-2013.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     30-05-2014.

1          Smt. Kshama Chatterjee,

wife of Sri Amalapati Chatterjee,

residing at 11/3, Harinath Nayaratna Lane,

P.S.  Shibpur, District – Howrah,

PIN – 711102.

2.         Sri Amalapati  Chatterjee,

son of late Archana Narayan  Chattyopadhyay,

residing at 11/3, Harinath Nayaratna Lane, P.S.  Shibpur,

District – Howrah,

PIN – 711102.--------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANTS.

-          Versus    -

1.      Sri  Subhrajit  Ghosh,

son of Sri Samar Ghosh,

residing at 95/2/5,  Shibpur Road, P.S. Shibpur,

District – Howrah,

PIN – 711102.

2.      Sri Sunit Das,

son of late Dwijendranath Das,

residing at 95/C, Jay Narayanbabu,  Ananda  Dutta Lane,

P.S. Bantra, District – Howrah,

PIN – 711101.------------------------------------------------------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 the complainants   U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended upto date ) wherein the complainants  prayed  for  direction  upon the O.Ps. to perform the covenants as made out in the undertaking dated 06-07-2009 in favour of the complainant no. 1, wife of complainant no. 2 in spite of the fact the development agreement was made on 05-08-2005  with the complainant no. 2 & other co-sharers of the schedule property comprises with the holding no. 97/1, Shibpur  Road, P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah, and to pay compensation / damages to the tune of  Rs. 2 lakhs and other costs as entitled to.   

2.               The o.ps. in their written statement contended interalia that he constructed G+3 storied building as per Agreement for Development was executed in between Happy Regency  and the complainant no. 2 on the dated 05-08-2005 wherein the complainant no. 2 has received his share in money in exchange of constructional share and other three number co-sharers as per agreement have already enjoyed their shares. Moreover, the o.p.no. 1 has no locus standi to file this suit and is not maintainable at all and for which so called undertaking does not relate with Happy Regency for which the complaint as made by the complainant is liable to be dismissed against the o.ps. with costs.

3.               Upon pleadings of both 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 and compensation as prayed for? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

4.               Both the points are taken up together for consideration. The development agreement dated 05-08-2005 was executed with the o.p. no. 2 i.e, Amalapati Chatterjee and other three number co-sharers and the o.p. no. 2 relinquished his share by receiving money in exchange of constructional share as admitted. Moreover, the undertaking which was executed in between complainant no. 1 and o.ps. which is in contravention of the development agreement dated 05-08-2005 as the complainant no. 1 has no locus standi with that of the development agreement. Furthermore, the o.p. no. 1 has not paid any considered money against so-called undertaking and also there is no existence of any flat within the schedule premises in question. The development agreement was executed in between  complainant no. 2 and o.ps. and the complainant failed to prove any deviation of the development agreement for which deficiency in service against the o.ps. does not hold goods for which we are of the candid opinion that so-called service deficiency against the o.ps. as per agreement beyond the scope of this Forum and we are unable to offer any relief to the complainants at this point of time.

Both the points are accordingly disposed of.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 303  of 2013 ( HDF 303 of 2013 )  be  and the same is dismissed without costs against the o.ps.   

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

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (   P. K. Chatterjee )                                                         

  Member,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.