JUDGEMENT

          Complainant by filing this complaint submitted that he along with his wife entered into an agreement with Subhara Jyoti Basu for purchasing a small flat in ground floor, measuring 420 sq. ft. at consideration of Rs.700/- on 29.05.2006 situated at 14/34, Nagendra Nath Road, P.S.-Dum Dum, Kolkata-700028.  Thereafter he became ill and after recovery he paid total amount along with registration charges and finally op/promoter/developer registered the deed.  But till today the promoter has not provided the completion certificate from South Dum Dum Municipality for which he was not able to get mutation and paid municipal tax in his name. 

          Moreover promoter failed to construct the boundary wall around building and not even done painting of building inside and outside of building.  So many time complainant requested the op for completion of the same but promoter did not take any positive step.  So, complainant prayed for passing such direction to the promoter and to build the same and handover the mutation certificate by mutating his name in the Municipality.

          On the other hand op by filing this written statement submitted that complaint is bad in law due to non-joinder of parties because complainant and his wife also co-landowner and further the allegation made in the complaint is false and fabricated but admitted fact is that complainant has got the possession of flat on 01.10.2008 and registration was done on 10.09.2010.  But the complainant further submitted that the sanctioned for construction of the building premises is obtained in the name of the Land Owners and not in the name of the promoter/op and it is the duty of the land owners to arrange for the same and it is not the duty of the developer.

          Further there is no mention that the op made the boundary wall around the building and painted the building inside and outside.  So the entire complaint is vexatious and for which same should be dismissed.

                                                       Decision with reasons

          Heard Ld. Lawyer of both the parties and after considering the entire fact, it is undisputed fact that op is the developer and fact remains that there was a development agreement in between the land owners and in the present op in respect of Sagarika Apartment and thereafter complainant and his wife entered into an agreement and thereafter as per agreement Sale Deed was executed in favour of the complainant and his wife and in the meantime Sagarika Apartment Owners’ Association has already claimed from the op all documents and it is found that Sagarika Apartment Owners’ Association reported the op to complete the job and to handover the entire premises in favour of the Sagarika Apartment Owners’ Association.

          Truth is that it is the duty of the developer to complete the entire work as per development agreement.  It is the duty of the developer to complete the entire complex and to submit completion certificate and as per development agreement in between the owner and the op and as per agreement to sale dated 29.05.2006 it is clear that the present developer as seller shall deliver the occupiers and others regarding the entire matter and management of the said building and truth is that op developer has not completed the boundary wall around the building and painting inside and outside of the building and some other works and has also failed to hand over the completion certificate of Municipality though no doubt registration of the Deed was done on 10.09.2010.

          But from the written version of the op, it is clear that op has not yet completed several works and also has not handed over mutation certificate in favour of the complainant or the completion certificate of the entire Sagarika Apartment.  It is also proved from the entire materials on record that op has failed to hand over the completion certificate to Sagarika Apartment Owners’ Association also and has not yet completed the entire outstanding works i.e. repairing, painting of inside and outside of the building, boundary wall around the building, roof door etc and in fact op has not denied all those allegations.

          But has tried to say that the owners are liable for that and it is not the liability of op.  But it is known to all that promoter/developer works as per development agreement and developer sells his portion as per development agreement to the intended purchasers and in the present case, complainant purchased the allocated portion of the developer and in respect of completion certificate, it is bounden duty on the part of the developer to handover it to all the flat owners.

          In the present case Sagarika Apartment Owners’ Association again and again informed the op but that has not been done.  Then it is clear that it is the deficiency in service.  Further promoter has not completed the entire building construction work and for which complainant has failed to mutate his name in the Municipality.  But it is the liability, responsibility as per contract and op must have to do that and for violation of the terms of contract, op has acted illegally and practically op has adopted unfair trade practice as promoter.

          But anyhow some hyper-technical arguments was advanced by the Ld. Lawyer of the op but we did not rely upon such hyper-technical argument.  But legal position is that promoter or developer must have to handover the completion certificate to the flat owners and it is the duty of the promoter/developer to complete the entire construction work that is painting inside and outside and in this case from the op’s pleas it is clear that op has not completed the building.  Then it is clear that op has adopted unfair trade practice and it is no doubt harassment and even after paying huge amount for purchasing the flat.  Mere registration of Deed does not anyway saves the developer from his responsibility and liability as developer.  Responsibility and liability of the developer shall be ceased when the entire building would be transferred to the Sagarika Apartment Owners’ Association and when Sagarika Apartment Owners’ Association would hand over such certificate to the op that they are satisfied after getting completion certificate and other matter they are taking charge of the building.

          But nothing has been produced by the op, then it is clear that op is trying to avoid liability and it is no doubt an unfair trade practice of op and all flat owners are being deprived for which there are sufficient ground to allow this complaint.  So the complainant is entitled to get decree when present complainant is maintainable because it is filed by one out of joint flat owners (husband and wife).

          Hence, it is

                                                             ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the op with cost of Rs.10,000/-.

          Op is hereby directed to handover the certificate of completion and mutate the name of the complainant in the South Dum Dum Municipality and to complete all incomplete works of the said building so that op may get the completion certificate from the South Dum Dum Municipality and op shall also hand over it to the flat owners and it must be done by the op within 2 months from the date of this order.

          For harassing the complainant in such a manner and for his mental pain and agony and for adopting unfair trade practice op shall have to pay compensation of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant.

          For adopting unfair trade practice in such a manner and to deceive the flat owners in such a manner by the op, op is imposed punitive damages to the extent of Rs.50,000/- and it is imposed for checking the unfair trade practice as being adopted by the op in the present case and to check his such sort of activities in future.

          Op is directed to comply this order within 2 months from the date of this order failing which for non-compliance of the Forum’s order and for each month default, op shall have to pay penal damages @ Rs.20,000/- per month till full satisfaction of this order and for reluctant attitude of op he shall be prosecuted u/s 27 of C.P. Act 1986 and for which he may be fined and further penalty may be imposed.