This is a complaint made by Mousumi Dasgupta, wife of Mukut Dasgupta and Mukut Dasgupta, son of Late Satya Gopal Dasgupta, both residing at 9, Bhattacharjee Para Lane, P.S.-Garfa, Kolkata-700 075, against (1) Susanta Ghosh, son of Late Sunil Chandra Ghosh, proprietor of M/S N.G. Construction, 69, Safuipara Baidya Para, P.S.-Kasba, Kolkata-700 078, OP No.1, (2) Dwijen Biswas, OP No.2, (3) Samaren Biswas, OP No.3, both sons of Late Netai Chandra Biswas and (4) Naren Chandra Biswas, son of Late Nabwadwip Chandra Biswas, OP No.4, all are residing at 2/1/5, Nelinagar Colony, P.S. Garfa, Kolkata – 700 078, praying for a direction upon the OPs to deliver the covered car parking space on the North East side measuring more or less 120 sq.ft.each totaling 360 sq.ft.on the ground floor of the G+3 storied building. Along with the undivided proportionate share of the land measuring 5 cottahs 9 chittaks 22 sq.ft. and direction upon the OP not to transfer and hand over the physical possession of the above noted car parking spaces to any other person and also direction upon the OPs not to enter into any other agreement or to sell the car parking space and temporary restraining the OP to deal with the schedule with any third party, compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and another Rs.3,00,000/- for causing in delaying in physical possession of car parking space and Rs.2,00,000;/- for pecuniary damages and litigation cost.

            Facts in brief are that OP No.2, 3 & 4 are the absolute owners of the property measuring about 5 cottahs 9 chittaks and  22 sq.ft. situated at Mouza – Garfa in Ward No.105 of Kolkata Municipal Corporation. OP No.1 is the developer in respect of the schedule property. OP No.2 to 4 are the owners and they entered into a development agreement with OP No.1 for construction of a G + 3 storied building by virtue of a deed of general power of attorney. Developer OP No.1 in the month of July, 2013 approached to sell three covered car parking space on the North-East side measuring  about 360 sq.ft. Complainant paid to the developer total consideration money to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/- on 30.7.2013. Complainant further contends that OP from the beginning  of the sale after making deed of conveyance did not handover he physical possession. So, the Complainant filed this case.

            On the basis of above facts, notices were served upon the OPs. But, since they did not make any appearance the case was heard ex-parte.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief wherein she has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition. On behalf of the Complainant the case was argued.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the relief as sought for. At the outset it is noteworthy to mention here that OPs since receipt of the notices did not appear and contest the case. Further, it appears that deed of conveyance was made by the OP in favour of the Complainants on 30.7.2013. On perusal of this deed of conveyance, it is clear that Complainant took possession of the schedule property which is mentioned in the schedule of the deed at the time when conveyance of deed was made. There is no mention that this conveyance deed was made even without handing over possession. Further, it appears that the conveyance deed was made in July, 2013. Since then Complainant waited for about three years when they filed this complaint against the OP.

            There is no mention in the complaint petition as to why Complainants waited for three years and filed this complaint at a belated stage i.e. after the lapse of two years. They have also not mentioned about the circumstance which prevented them in filing this complaint and also as to why even taking possession they got the conveyance deed made in their favour.

            In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find that Complainants are not entitled to the reliefs which they have prayed for. It is also because if at all; the contention of the Complainants are conceded it amounts to recovery of possession on the basis of a title deed which perhaps this Consumer Forum does not have jurisdiction.

            Hence,

ordered

            CC/347/2016 is considered and dismissed.