Ashoke Kumar Gupta and Others Vs. Saikait Koley and Another

Mridula Roy, Member:

This order will govern both the appeals being Nos. FA/798/2012 and FA/806/2012 since both the appeal have arisen out of the same judgement.

Both the appeals are directed against the judgement dated 28.09.2012 in CC Case No. 111/2011 passed by Ld. District Forum, North 24 Pgs. wherein the Ld. District Forum allowed the case on contest against the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 with cost directing the O.Ps jointly and severally to handover the actual physical vacant possession to the Complainant within one month from the date of order, to handover the Completion Certificate to the Complainant within one month from the date of order, to install the electric connection in the flat and also in the garage space of the Complainant in his personal within one month from the date of order and to pay cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.6,000/- to the Complainant within one month from the date of order, in the event of non-compliance of the order O.Ps are further directed to pay Rs.200/- per day from the date of order till realization as penalty, from which 50% of such amount shall be paid and the rest 50% shall be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund by the O.Ps.

Complainants case before the Ld. District Forum in brief, is that, he entered into an agreement dated 27.05.2010 with the O.P. – Developer for purchasing a flat in the second floor of a building situated at holding No. CE-335, CE-336 and CE-337 Chandiberia, Krishnapur, Kolkata – 700 102 along with a garage space at the ground floor measuring about 100 sq.ft. Accordingly, he paid a sum of Rs.25,85,000/- to the O.P. – Developer. Subsequently, the Deed of Conveyance in respect of the said flat and garage space was executed and registered in favour of the Complainant on 29.12.2010. Subsequently, the Complainant has alleged that the O.P. – Developer has not completed the finishing work of the garage space and also did not handover the possession of the garage space to the Complainant. The Complainant further alleged that the Completion Certificate also yet to be handed over to the Complainant by the O.P. – Developer. Furthermore, the O.P. – Developer did not take any step to install the service connection of electricity in favour of the Complainant for his personal meter. The Complainant also alleged that he had paid sum extra amount amounting to Rs.34,514/- to the O.P. – Developer which to be refunded to him. Accordingly, the Complainant filed the instant case with prayer for direction upon the O.Ps to complete the garage as per agreement dated 27.05.2010 and to handover its physical possession, to supply the electricity connection to the Complainants flat and garage, to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-, to refund Rs.34,514/- as he took for extra payment, to complete the building along with the Completion Certificate, to pay another amount of Rs.1,35,100/- to the Complainant towards compensation.

The O.Ps appeared and contested the case by filing Written Version denying and disputing all the material allegations stating inter alia, that the Complainant did not pay the agreed amount in full to the O.Ps, still the O.Ps executed and registered the Deed of Conveyance showing good gesture. Further, the O.Ps stated that they have applied for Completion Certificate to the local municipal authorities and the process on issuance of said certificate was on. The O.Ps further stated that they also have applied to the W.B.S.E.D.C.L. for service connection of the flat owners personal meter. That process was also on. Accordingly, as the O.Ps submitted that they have no deficiency in service on their part, the petition of complaint should be dismissed.

Parties adduced evidence by Affidavit.

DECISION :

In course of hearing both the appeals taken up together for the sake of convenience. Ld. Advocate for the O.P. – Developers submitted that they entered into an agreement for sale dated 27.05.2010 with the Complainant and accordingly, as per terms of the agreement, they have completed their job and being fully satisfied with regard thereto the nature, scope and extent of benefit, right, interest the Complainant put his signature in the Deed of Conveyance for registration of the same. As such, he should have no dispute regarding the flat and the garage space. The Ld. Advocate for the O.P. – Developer has further submitted that the Complainant did not pay the agreed amount as a lot of extra works had been done. The Ld. Advocate for the O.P. – Developers also submitted that they submitted their application before the concerned municipality for obtaining Completion Certificate. Similarly, they have applied for electricity service connection in personal meter of the Complainant to the competent authority.

On the other hand, the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submitted that the Deed of Conveyance was executed in a hurry and he did not get the opportunity to go through the same. In fact, no physical possession was delivered in respect of the garage space. Further, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submitted that the O.P. – Developer refused to handover the Completion Certificate to him and for the electricity connection, the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submitted that for unscrupulous activities on the part of the O.P. – Developer he had been compelling to pay much higher charges for consumption of electricity.

On perusal of the record it transpired that the Deed of Conveyance was registered on 29.12.2010 and the Complainant being fully satisfied accepted the same and also the Developer admitted therein that he got the agreed amount in full. The Deed of Conveyance shows that the Complainant got possession of the flat as well as the garage. Therefore, no question of dispute in respect of the possession of the flat as well as the garage space or payment of consideration money could arise.

As regards the Completion Certificate and electricity connection it appears from the record that the Appellant has filed Writ Petition being No. 5159 (W) of 2012 and certain directions have been passed by the Honble High Court, Calcutta. It further appears from the BNA submitted by the Respondent/Developers that the Respondents in compliance of the said order has taken necessary steps.

Since the possession has been delivered and the Deed of Conveyance has been registered wherein the Complainant/Appellant being satisfied with the services rendered by the Respondent signed the deed, the agreement stands determined. Under such circumstances, the Appellant cannot raise the question of deficiency in service. The complaint fails.

Hence, ordered that the impugned judgement is set aside. The petition of complaint is dismissed. Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly.