Back
WEST BENGAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Manojit Mandal, President, Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member and Shyamal Kumar Ghosh, Member
Samiran Kumar Singha —Complainant
versus
M/s. MSDCON and Ors. Opp. Parties
Complaint Case No.CC/578/2017
Decided on 17.11.2022
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.17[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 —S.47(1)] – Services – Real Estate – Allotment of Flat – Delayed Possession – Demarcation of car parking – IF can be adjudicated by Consumer Forum - Complaint has been filed for alleged deficiency of service - It is admitted fact that the complainant entered into an agreement for sale on 04.06.2012 with the OPs No. 1, 2 & OP No.3. It is also admitted fact that the deed of conveyance of the flat in question and the car parking space was executed and registered on 31.05.2013. There is no denial that the complainant is in the possession of the flat in question and the car parking space. The complainant has prayed for direction upon OPs to demarcate the car parking space to the complainant and to handover the caretaker room and store room to the flat owners and to handover the completion certificate by making a flat owners’ association along with consequential relief - whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief prayed in Prayer ‘a’ of the complaint petition - There is nothing about the demarcation of car parking space. Only the measurement has been mentioned - Therefore, the prayer for demarcation of the car parking space cannot be entertained by this Commission. Moreover, the complainant has prayed for handing over the caretaker room and store room to the flat owners. Though the prayer is concerned with the common interest of all the flat owners, but the complainant has not filed any petition u/s 12(1) (c ) of CP Act, 1986. Therefore, this prayer also cannot be entertained – Also, that complainant is in the possession of the flat and car parking space and registration for the same been completed long ago, only the Completion Certificate is due. Since the complaint has not raised any objection at the time of taking possession and registration of the flat and car parking space, Commission was not inclined to pass any order for compensation - OPs No. 1 & 2 were directed to demolish the ramp at the entrance of the building in question. [Paras 16, 17, 26].
Result: Compliant disposed off.
ORDER
Samiksha Bhattarcharya, Member—The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 17(1)(a)(i) of the CP Act, 1986 against the OPs alleging deficiency in service.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the complainant, having in dire need of a suitable residential accommodation, was in quest of a flat at a convenient place under the police station Sonarpur. Having been approached by the OPs No. 1 & 2, the complainant expressed his desire to purchase a flat subject to fulfilment of his criteria. OP No. 1 is a proprietorship firm and OP No. 2 is the proprietor of OP No. 1 firm. Being satisfied the complainant entered into a registered agreement for sale with the OPs to purchase a self-contained flat on 04.06.2012 lying and situated at Holding No. 145, Netaji Subhas Road, under Rajpur-Sonarpur Municipality, Ward No. 8, District 24 Parganas (South) which is described in Schedule B of the petition of complaint. The full and final consideration of the flat was settled at Rs.24 lakhs and after payment of full consideration, the deed of conveyance has been executed on 31.05.2013 with the terms and conditions of the agreement and OPs agreed to comply the remaining terms and conditions after few months from the execution of the deed of conveyance. As per verbal commitment, the complainant has been ensured that completion certificate would be obtained and to be handed over to the complainant and one caretaker room is to be demarcated for common use and enjoyment of the residents and flat owners for which the complainant was charged extra amount and the OPs will demarcate the area of car parking space to each buyer, although in the sanctioned building plan only 5 car parking spaces are appearing and sanctioned by the Municipal Authority. Thereafter, on several occasions, the complainant requested the OPs to demarcate the car parking space, handover the completion certificate, handover other store room and caretaker room, but till date no fruitful result has been yielded. Being refused by the OPs, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 09.07.2016 to OPs. But the OPs did not reply to the same.
3. The complainant and other flat owners jointly filed a complaint case being No. CC/119/2016 before the Ld. DCDRC at Baruipur for their common interest and the matter was fixed for hearing on 06.07.2017 and the matter was withdrawn by the complainants with liberty to file the case afresh within 30 days from the date of order i.e., 06.07.2017.
4. The complainant has alleged that due to negligent act and deficiency in rendering proper service by the OPs, complainant has suffered immense loss and mental agony as well as huge financial loss to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- for which he is entitled to get compensation from OPs No. 1 & 2. Hence, the petition of complaint praying for direction upon OPs to demarcate the area of car parking space to the complainant and also to handover the caretaker room and store room to the flat owners immediately, to handover the completion certificate of the building to the complainant by making a flat owners’ association along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards the loss and damages sustained by the complainant due to harassment and deficiency in rendering service to him by the OPs. The complainant has also prayed for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the loss and damages sustained by the complainant due to harassment and mental agony and deficiency in service by the OPs and litigation cost.
5. OPs No. 1 & 2 and OP No. 3 contested the case by filing their separate written version.
6. In their written version, OPs NO.1 & 2 denied all material allegations inter alia stated that OPs NO. 1& 2 had applied for Building Plan Certificate and/or Occupancy Certificate to the Rajpur-Sonarpur Municipality and also deposited requisite charges for drainage connection. Upon inspection, Rajpur-Sonarpur Municipality stated to the OPs that the ramp so constructed by the opposite parties connecting the road and th
Demarcation of the car parking space - The prayer for demarcation of the car parking space cannot be entertained by this Commission.
Developers are accountable for possession delays and quality issues under housing agreements, invoking the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act and Consumer Protection Act.
The court ruled that a consumer society cannot claim compensation for deficiency without clear evidence of service shortfalls and emphasizes obligations under the Consumer Protection Act and MOFA.
Proper party inclusion is essential in consumer complaint cases to address issues of common interest adequately.
In the event of failure to give possession of flat as agreed, purchaser is entitled to approach Consumer Commission.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
