STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/19/A/189/2023 Utpal Sarkar PRESENT ADDRESS - S/o, LT Sudhir Chandra Sarkar. Flat No.- 2C, Near A Block, Krishna Apartment, 206/1 & 2, Block- A, Bangur Avenue, Kolkata- 700 055. ,WEST BENGAL.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus Smt. Sabita Dutta PRESENT ADDRESS - W/o, Lt Bijoy Kumar Dutta. 326, Bangur Avenue, Kolkata- 700 055. ,WEST BENGAL.

Shri Subhajit Dutta PRESENT ADDRESS - S/o, Lt Bijoy Kumar Dutta. 326, Bangur Avenue, Kolkata- 700 055. ,WEST BENGAL.

Smt. Papiya Ray PRESENT ADDRESS - D/o, Lt Bijoy Kumar Dutta. 27, Gopal Jew Mandir Road, Birati, Pin- 700

051. ,WEST BENGAL.

Smt. Bandana Chatterjee PRESENT ADDRESS - W/o, Sri Jiban Chatterjee. 52, Dum Dum Park, Near Tank No.- 1, Kolkata-

700 055. ,WEST BENGAL.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT: Sourav Maiti (Advocate)

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr. Rajesh Biswas,Koyel Senapati, Tarunjyoti Banerjee (Advocate)

Mr. Rajesh Biswas, Koyel Senapati (Advocate) Mr. Rajesh Biswas, Koyel Senapati (Advocate)

Mr. Tarun Jyoti Banerjee, (Advocate)

DATED: 18/08/2025

ORDER

MRIDULA ROY, MEMBER Both the instant appeals have been arisen out of an order dated 30-03-2023 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North 24 Parganas (referred as District Commission hereinafter) in consumer complaint case no.

CC/162/2012 allowing the same on contest against the Opposite Parties directing the Opposite Parties to handover the deficit area of flat measuring about 661.23 sq. ft. covered area in the suit premises, alternatively, to pay Rs.9,10,870/- to the Complainants along with interest @6% per annum to be accrued on the aforesaid amount from the date of completion of the construction work, further directing the OP to pay Rs.20,000/- towards litigation cost within 3 months from the date of the order failing which putting the Complainant at liberty to take steps according to law.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with this order the OP no. 1 has preferred an appeal being no. A/189/2023 and the Complainants have preferred an appeal being No. A/255/2023 before this Commission.

The Appellant in the appeal no. A/189/2023 has preferred the appeal on the grounds stating, inter alia, that the Owners by executing a Development Agreement on 01.10.2005 allowed the Developers to develop and construct a four storied building complete in all respect consisting several flats or apartments at their own cost and thereafter to deliver the flats at entire 1^st floor and partly on the 2^nd floor to the Owners and, subsequently, by a subsequent Agreement dated 27.06.2007 the agreed portion of the constructed area was delivered to the Owners on 27.04.2009. But,, in spite of that the Respondent/Owners served notice upon the Appellant demanding 661.23 sq. ft. constructed area more. The Appellant further stated that the impugned order was passed by the Ld. Members of the District Forum without having quorum and, therefore, this was not proper, legal and bad under section 14(2) of the C.P. Act, 1986 and moreover, the Ld. Member passed the impugned order whimsically without applying judicial mind.

The Appellant stated that the Ld. District Forum failed to appreciate that expenses of Developer shall be shared by the Owners for the additional development of the top floor in the following heads of municipal charges, expenditure for extra work, total cost of construction and also for advance payment made out of settled amount.

On the other hand, the Land Owners have preferred an appeal being no. A/255/2023 on the grounds stating, inter alia, that Ld. District Commission below did not consider the actual market value while directing the Developer to pay the Complainants/Owners for the shortfall area of the Owners allocation at the time of passing the judgment dated 30.03.2023 since at that spell of time value of the constructed Owners allocation portion was more than Rs.1137/- per