JUDGMENT

Ajeya Matilal, Judicial Member.—The complainant case is in short like that he is the owner of a plot of land measuring 3 cottas 3 chittaks lying and situated at premises No. 4/1E/1B convent lane under P.S Entally at Ward No. 56 of Kolkata Municipal Corporation. The OP is promoter and developer having housing construction business and he had his place of residence within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.

2. The complainant entered into a development agreement on 18.08.2009 with the OP in respect of the aforementioned plot by constructing a multi-storied building with modern amenities with costs and expenses to be borne by the Opposite Party in terms of the agreement.

3. The OP promised to complete the entire construction work after obtaining sanctioned plan from the concerned department of KMC at his own costs and expenses within the period of 24 months from the date of obtaining the sanctioned plan and to realise the costs of construction after exploiting developer’s allocation in the said building.

4. According to the complainant the OP did not take any step to construct the multi-storied building and while completing the construction work he violated the provisions and norms pertaining to construction of the building. The OP refused and neglected to supply a copy of the sanctioned plan and revised sanctioned plan for additional floor and completion certificate certifying that the construction work of the building was completed in accordance with the sanctioned plan. The OP failed and neglected to handover the possession of the owner’s allocation and also failed to supply the completion certificate.

5. The OP in violation of the terms and condition of the agreement sold out and delivered possession of some flats of the building to the purchasers who have been occupying the premises before the completion certificate was issued. According to complainant, there are some defects in the construction including making construction deviating from the building plan, using materials of construction of inferior quality etc. Furthermore, the overhead tank was not constructed. Inside plastering of all flats was not completed and there are also some other defects in construction. The complainant requested the OP to remove defects and regularise the matter of deviation from the sanctioned plan, but the OP did not pay any heed to the complainant. Due to non-availability of the completion certificate the complainant is unable to apply for revenue assessment of the flats before the municipal authority for the purpose of making payment of municipal taxes. The complainant through his Ld. Advocate sent a letter on 03.05.2018 to the OP which was returned with postal remark “not claimed”.

6. According to the complainant, the OP was aware of the contents of the said notice and the complainant demanded for compliance of terms and condition of the agreement. On receipt of notice, the OP entered appearance and filed W.V. The OP took formal plea of non-maintainability of the complainant. But the OP admitted the execution of development agreement. It is also admitted by the OP that the building is not complete and no completion certificate has been obtained. According to the complainant, the OP adopted unfair means of trade practice for the purpose of promoting his business by deceiving the complainant to earn more profits by illegal means. Subsequently, the OP did not contest the case and it proceeded ex parte against him.

7. According to the complainant, the value of the land at the time of execution of development agreement was not more than 65,00,000/- being the consideration amount of the services of OPs and the compensation tentatively claimed at Rs. 25,00,000/- which exceeds Rs. 20,00,000/- but does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000. So according to the complainant this commission has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this case.

8. So the complainant files this case with a prayer for directing the OPs to remove the defect in the