FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT
SMT. SAHANA AHMED BASU, MEMBER.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The fact of the case, in brief, is that the Complainant is the absolute owner of a piece and parcel of land measuring about 1 cottah 1 chhitak 35 sq.ft (more or less), lying and situated at Mouza – Laskarat , J.L.No 11, Touzi No 145, Revenue Survey No 151, comprised in R.S Dag No/542 under Khaitan No 1 , now within the limits of Kolkata Municipal Corporation, being Premises No 275 , Laskarhat , Ward No 107,Kolkata – 700039. The Complainant had entered into a Development Agreement dated 19/01/2015 and executed a registered Power of Attorney in favour of the OPs for construction of a three-storied building on the said premises. As per agreement, the OPs agreed to handover the entire 2nd Floor, the rear portion of the Ground Floor and an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant . The O.Ps. failed to comply the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement dated 19/01/2015.
O.Ps. despite service of notices of the complaint O.Ps. have failed to file written version within the limitation period provided under section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. No request for condonation of delay or extension of time for filing written version was made. Therefore, right of the O.Ps. to file W.V. was closed vide order dated 06/11/2019.
Decision with Reasons
Complainant Smt. Chandra Dutta has filed her evidence by way of affidavit in supporting the allegations made in the complaint.
Ld. Advocate for the complainant has taken us through the consumer complaint as also the evidence adduced in support of the complaint. On perusal of the registered Development Agreement dated 19/01/2015 it is clear that the complainant entrusted the O.Ps. to construct a three storied building on her land being KMC Premises No.275, Laskarhat, Kolkata-700039. From the above document, it is also clear that the complainant is entitled to get entire 2nd floor, rear portion of ground floor and cash of Rs.2,00,000/-. Complainant has categorically alleged in the complaint that in spite of request the O.Ps. did not deliver possession of the flat and Rs.1,00,000/- after expiry of four years. As the O.Ps. have opted not to file written version despite service of notice of complaint, the allegations of the complainant is deemed to have been admitted as correct. In order to prove said allegations, complainant has filed her affidavit reaffirming the allegations. Thus, it stands proved that the O.Ps. have failed to deliver possession of the entire 2nd floor, rear portion of the ground floor flat and balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as per Development Agreement to the complainant. In absence of any explanation for failure to comply with the stipulation of delivery of possession and non-payment of Rs.1,00,000/-, we have no hesitation in concluding that the O.Ps. committed deficiency in service as also have indulged in unfair trade practice.
In view of the discussion above, the complaint is allowed with following directions :-
- The OPs are jointly and severally directed to handover the owner’s allocation of the subject flat together with sanctioned plan, possession letter and completion certificate to the complainant.
- The OPs are jointly and severally also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant.
- The OPs are jointly severally further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation to the complainant for causing harassment and mental pain.
- The OPs are jointly and severally directed to comply the above orders within 45 days from the date of the order failing which the Complainant is at liberty to put the order in execution according to law.
