JUDGMENT

Ajeya Matilal, Judicial Member.—Complainant Janardan Ghosh filed the instant complaint for deficiency in service and adopted unfair trade practice by OPs in respect of rendering service.

2. The case of the Complainant in short is that he is the landowner of the premises no.540, Mahendra Banerjee Road, P.S. Parnasree, Kolkata-700060. The OPs approached to him for entering into a joint venture development agreement for construction of a new building over the premises of the Complainant as per schedule building plan of Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) at the developers’ cost. The Complainant entered into a registered agreement dt.18.02.2013 with OPs developers whereby Complainant entrusted the power to OPs developers to construct and develop a new building over the aforesaid premises. As per the agreement between the parties it was agreed upon that on completion 50% of the construction would belong to the owner’s allocation. It was agreed upon that the developers shall complete the project of construction within 18 months from the date of receipt of the sanctioned plan from KMC which was duly obtained from 12.06.2013. It was also agreed by OPs that they would pay Rs.3500/- per month towards the cost of alternative accommodation and shifting charges till the completion and delivery of possession of the aforesaid flat. The construction work started and the ground floor was completed, but the remaining works remained suspended for more than 12 months. Complainant came to know after going to the site that there was no further progress in the work. As per agreement the developers were to pay Rs.3500/- per month towards the costs of alternative accommodation and shifting charges till the completion of delivery of possession in respect of owner’s allocation. But the developers did not pay any such amount since Sept. 2016. The price of the land is Rs.29,50,000/-. According to Complainant, he handed over the said sum to the developers as per agreement. But in spite of his repeated requests, OPs did not complete the construction or deliver the possession of the schedule property to Complainant.

3. So, Complainant filed the instant case with a prayer for direction upon the OPs to handover the decided owner’s allocation to the extent of 50% and also prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-.

4. OPs contested the case by filing W/V denying the material allegations of the complaint along with technical pleas. According to them, Complainant is neither a consumer nor OPs are the service provider in terms of provision of the C.P. Act, 1986 and the present dispute is not a consumer dispute. According to them, the schedule of property stated in the complaint is wrong. It is also alleged that at the time of execution of development agreement dt.18.02.2013 and also power of attorney, Complainant failed to produce any mutation certificate from BL & LRO in respect of the schedule property. The Complainant assured the OPs that he would get his name mutated in land records. But OPs after making a due search from the concerned department found that the land was recorded in the name of one Dhirendra Kr. Dey. According to them unless the defect in land record in the office of BL & LRO is rectified no further proceeding could be done in normal course of time in respect of construction work. It is also alleged that after execution of the development agreement OPs started paying the stipulated amount of Rs.3500/- per month towards the cost of alternative accommodation and shifting charges to Complainant till the month of Nov. 2017, but Complainant in spite of repeated request from OPs did not issue any receipt of the same. According to them, Complainant filed this case malafide only with a view to hide his own faults and negligence alleging that OPs were responsible for such a situation. In spite of such obstacles OPs completed the ground floor and first floor and brick