Date of Filing – 29.04.2016

Date of Hearing – 13.10.2017

            The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is at the behest of the Opposite Parties to impeach the Judgement/Final Order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas at Alipore (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No. 265/2014.  By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint lodged by the Respondent Under Section 12 of the Act on contest with direction upon the opposite parties/appellants to hand over Completion Certificate, to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost.

          The Respondent herein being complainant lodged the complaint asserting that on 29.03.2012 he purchased of a residential flat measuring about 740 sq. ft. super built up area on the 3^rd (top) floor along with undivided proportionate share of land at Premises No.604, Bidhanpally Colony, P.S.- Regent Park, now P.S.- Bansdroni, Kolkata – 700084, Dist- South 24 Parganas within the local limits of Ward No.112 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation at a total consideration of Rs.12 lakhs.  The complainant alleged that the developer did not take any step to provide her the completion certificate and in this regard all his requests and persuasions turned a deaf ear.  The complainant has also alleged about deficiencies in completion of the building as per agreed terms.

          The Appellant being opposite party by filing a written version has stated that the completion certificate must be given by the KMC and as KMC is not a party, they have no role on it and as such the complaint should be dismissed.

          After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned final order allowed the complaint with the direction upon the opposite parties as indicated above.  Being aggrieved by that Judgement/Final Order, the opposite parties have come up in this Commission with the present appeal.

          I have scrutinised the materials on record and considered submission advanced by Mr. Soumendra Roy Chowdhry, Ld. Advocate for the appellants.  None appears for the respondent when the record called on for hearing.  Under compulsion, I proceeded to dispose of the appeal in absence of the respondent.

          Ld. Advocate for the appellants has submitted that usually a developer is under obligation to handover the completion certificate to an intending purchaser but when at the requests of the intending purchaser, the developer has to do some additional work by violating the provisions of sanctioned building plan no liability can be attributed solely upon the developer.  He has also submitted that for proper adjudication, KMC should have been impleaded as a party.

          Undisputedly, on 29.03.2012 the respondent being an intending purchaser purchased from the developer/OP No.1 of which OP Nos. 2 & 3 ar