DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
North 24 Pgs., BARASAT
C.C. No.23/2022
Date of Filing Date of Admission Date of Disposal
02.02.2022 15.02.2022 29 08.2024
Complainant/s:- | Smt. Mira Guha, W/o. Sri Ramendra Nath Guha, presently residing At Om Sai Plaza- 2, 1st Floor, 224, Nandan Kanan, P.O. Rahara, Kolkata- 700118, Dist-North Parganas and permanently residing at New Colony, P.O.Rahara,, P.S Khardah,, Kolkata-700118, Dist- North 24 Parganas,, Represented by her son Sri Nayan Guha, S/o.Sri Ramendra Nath Guha New Colony, P.O.Rahara,, P.S Khardah,, Kolkata-700118, Dist- North 24Parganas. -Vs- |
Opposite Party/s:- | - The Parijat Construction, its regd. Office at
8/9/7, Station Road, Khardah, P.O. and P.S. Khardah, Kolkata 700117, Dist- North 24 Parganas. being Represented by its partners namely - Sri Suman Bose, S/o.Late Brojendra Narayan Bose,
4, Surya Sen Nagar,P.O. and P..S. Khardah, Kolkata-700117, Dist North 24 Parganas. - Sri Sukumar Roy, S/o.Late Amrita Lal Roy,
Arunachal, P.O..Rahara, P.S. Khardah, Kolkata-700118, Dist- North 24 Parganas. |
P R E S E N T :- Sri. Daman Prosad Biswas……….President.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu…………………. Member.
JUDGMENT /FINAL ORDER
The complainant above named filed this complaint against the aforesaid opposite parties praying for direction to hand over the owners’ allocation payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- as interest, rent as per agreement amounting to Rs. 1,23,750/-, compensation amounting to Rs. 15,00,000/-, cost of the case amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- and other reliefs.
She alleged that she is owner of ‘A’ schedule property. The Development Agreement was executed and registered in favour of the opposite parties on 22.05.2018 and said document was registered before the ADSR, Sodepur. After elapsed of more than one year O.P submitted the plan for proposed multistoried building and the same was duly sanctioned on 08.08.2019. The said building plan was sanctioned on 08.08.2019 by Khardaha Municipality. Thereafter the power of attorney was executed by the complainant in favour of the opposite parties on 08.11.2019. The opposite parties failed to complete the said building within the stipulated period of 24 months which mentioned in page No.4 clause 7 in the aforesaid development agreement dated 18.05.2018.
As per aforesaid agreement opposite parties were agreed to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the complainant. At the time of execution of aforesaid development agreement. They paid Rs. 2,00,000/-. Subsequently, O.Ps paid Rs. 1,00,000/- by cheque vide No.159906 which was cashed on 20.03.2019. Subsequently, opposite parties gave another cheque of
Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./
: : 2 : :
C.C. No./23/2022
Rs. 1,00,000/- vide cheque No. 159907 which was dishonored on 25.03.2019. Complainant further stated that as on this day Rs. 2,00,000/-is remain due. But after a long period opposite parties stopped the work.
Complainant after registration of aforesaid development agreement dated 18.05.2018 went on a rented house along with her all furniture and fixtures on 01.06.2018 at a monthly rent of Rs.7,500/-. Now she is paying rent at the rate of Rs. 8,250/-per month since November, 2020 but opposite parties deliberately denied to pay the aforesaid rent in favour of the complainant.
Complainant on several times requested the opposite parties to hand over the owner’s allocation and aforesaid rent but opposite parties did not pay any heed. On 16.01.2020 complainant claimed her dues but opposite parties deliberately neglected the request of the complainant. Complainant sent legal notice to the O.Ps through her Ld. Advocate Mr. Dilip Kumar Saha on 16.08.2021 with a request to hand over the possession of owners allocation.
The opposite parties contesting the case by filing W.V and denied the entire allegation made in the petition of complaint. They prayed for dismissal of this case.
Decisions with Reasons:-
Complainant in support of his case filed an affidavit –in- chief. The O. Ps filed an affidavit-in-chief, complainant filed questionnaire, opposite parties did not file any answer.
We have considered the aforesaid documents properly.
We have heard argument from the side of complainant.
On perusal of aforesaid development agreement we find that all the opposite parties are the party of the said agreement and O.P. Nos.1 and 2 had put their signature over the said document. Accordingly, we find that said document is totally binding upon the complainant as well as O.P. Nos. 1-3. So, O.P. Nos.1-3 cannot disobey the aforesaid development agreement. We find from the record that opposite parties paid Rs. 3,00,000/- in favour of the complainant as per the aforesaid agreement. So, we find that complainant is entitled to remaining amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the O.P. Nos. 1-3.
On perusal aforesaid development agreement we find that O.Ps were agreed to provide certain area in favour of the complainant. But the complainant alleged that building plan has sanctioned on 08.08.2019. Thereafter O.Ps have started work but in the midway they stopped the said work. As a result, the complainant is in anxiety. Moreover, complainant is residing in rented house and paying rent.
Contd. To Page No. 3 . . . ./
: : 3 : :
C.C. No./23/2022
As a result, she is facing difficulties.
On careful perusal of aforesaid agreement we find that there is no note about the payment of rent in favour of the complainant. Accordingly, the claim of house rent of the complainant is not sustainable at all.
O.Ps in their W.V. did not assign any specific reason as to why they not yet completed the construction work. The aforesaid act of the opposite parties are nothing but deficiency in service.
In the present case complainant Mira Guha authorized her son Nayan Guha by executing one registered power of attorney to conduct this case on his behalf.
On perusal of the record we find that the complainant is a consumer and the opposite parties are the service provider.
Having regard to the aforesaid discussion it is clear before us that complainant has able to established her grievance by sufficient documents beyond reasonable doubt and she is entitled to relief as her prayer.
In the result, the present case succeeds.
Hence,
it is
Ordered,
that the present case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.Ps with cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by O.Ps. in favour of the complainant.
O.P. Nos.1 and 3 jointly or severally are directed to complete the pending construction work within three months from this day and to provide the owners’ allocation in favour of the complainant which specifically mentioned in the deed of agreement dated 18.05.2018 failing which complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
O.P.Nos. 1 and.3 jointly or severally are further directed to Rs. 2,00,000/- (two lakhs) in favour of the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 18.05.2018 to till the date of actual payment preferably within 45 days from this day failing which complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
The O.Ps jointly or severally are directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- ( one lakh) in favour of the complainant preferably within 45 days from this day failing which complainant has liberty to put this order into execution.
Contd. To Page No. 4 . . . ./
: : 4 : :
C.C. No./23/2022
Let a copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.
Dictated and Corrected by me
President
Member President
