State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri Manas Kumar Chaudhury vs M/S. Orchid Developers Pvt. Ltd. on 30 March, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 Complaint Case No. CC/501/2017 ( Date of Filing : 04 Jul 2017 ) 1. Sri Manas Kumar Chaudhury S/o Lt. Samarendra Nath Chaudhury, 161/E-4, Area Colony, Bhopal - 462 016, Madhya Pradesh. 2. Smt. Deepika Chaudhury W/o Sri Madhusudan Biswas, 161/E-4, Area Colony, Bhopal - 462 016, Madhya Pradesh. ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. M/s. Orchid Developers Pvt. Ltd. Regd. office at 9/12, Lal Bazar Street, 3rd Floor, Block -C, Kolkata - 700 001. 2. M/s. Lavanya Projects Pvt. Ltd. Office at 9/12, Lal Bazar Street, 3rd Floor, Block -C, Kolkata - 700 001. 3. Mrs. Kshanaprava Sahoo W/o Mr. Amitav Mohapatra, Kalinga Lane, Mahatab Road, Cuttack - 753 012, Orissa. 4. Mr. Amitav Mohapatra S/o Sri Bhabagrati Mohapatra, Kalinga Lane, Mahatab Road, Cuttack - 753 012, Orissa. ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. SAMIKSHA BHATTACHARYA MEMBER HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL KUMAR GHOSH MEMBER PRESENT: Ms. Binota Roy, Ms. Priyanka Das, Advocate for the Complainant 1 Mr. Aloke Mukhopadhyay, Advocate for the Opp. Party 1 Mr. Aloke Mukhopadhyay, Advocate for the Opp. Party 1 Dated : 30 Mar 2023 Final Order / Judgement
MRS. SAMIKSHA BHATTACHARYA, MEMBER The instant complaint has been filed by the complainants under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the OPs alleging deficiency in service.
The facts of the case, in brief, are that the OP No. 1 is the owner of the land and OP No. 2 is the developer who is running business of developing projects and constructing ownership apartments in the city in the name of M/s. Laavanya Projects Pvt. Ltd. OPs No. 3 & 4, being the proforma OPs, are the initial purchasers, who had initially entered into the agreement for sale with the Ops No. 1 & 2. The complainants were allured by the attractive advertisement published in the form of brochure by the OP developers and subsequently the complainants are decided to purchase an apartment at one of the projects of the said OPs namely, 'Lavanya' within the District of North 24 Parganas, Rajarhat. Accordingly, the complainants have purchased one unit being No. 4G on the 4th floor of the building being Block No. 4 at Lavanya, Rajarhat, Kolkata measuring more or less 1150 sq. ft.super built up area together with one covered car parking space for a total consideration of 23,20,000/-. Be it noted that the said unit and the parking space was initially booked and allotted to proforma OPs No. 3 & 4 namely Mrs. Kshanaprava Sahoo and Mr. Amitav Mhapatra, and sum of Rs.5,80,000/- was paid to the OPs developers by the proforma OPs towards payment of booking money and agreement money as per agreement for sale dated 14.02.2011. After duly informing the OPs/developers of the intent of such purchase of the said unit from the proforma OPs and upon paying the amount of Rs.5,80,000/- to the said proforma OPs.
The OPs No. 1 & 2 vide their letter dated 23.07.2011 transferred thei said flat as described in the schedule of the petition of complaint in the name of the complainants from that of proforma OPs.
The OPs with their letter dated 28.07.2011 had sent a copy of the said agreement for sale dated 14.02.2011 to the complainants with an endorsement on the said agreement subsequently in favour of the complainants. Thereafter, upon such transfer of allotment of the said unit/flat from the proforma OPs, the complainants had been receiving intimation for payment of installments and on receiving the same complainants had been paying the same. The complainants had in fact paid almost the entire balance consideration amount to the OPs save and except the last installment. The complainants had duly paid the installments in the following manner :
Date Receipt No. Payment (Rs.) 14//06/2012 532 14,935/-
23/02/2013 764 2,39,169/-
12/08/2013 863 2,39,169/-
03/10/2013 929 2,39,169/-
24/10/2013 958 2,39,169/-
21/12/2013 1011 2,39/169/-
07/02/2014 1037 2,39,169/-
24/03/2014 1069 2,39,168/-
Total 16,89,117/-
Therefore, the complainants have paid 16,89,117/- in addition to Rs.5,80,000/- which was already paid by the proforma OPs. The total consideration to the tune of Rs.16,89,117/- + Rs.5,80,000/- = Rs.22,69,117/- had already been paid on behalf of the complainants. Every time, the complainants had visited the city of Kolkata, they used to visit the construction site and realized that the progress was very slow. As per agreement for sale dated 14.02.2011. As per Article VII Clause 7.1 of the agreement for sale the OPs ought to have handed over the possession of the complete flat together with car parking space and other common facilities and amenities on or before 24 months along with 6 months in addition from the date of agreement for sale. Therefore, the OPs ought to have handed over the possession of the complete flat on 13.08.2013 as per said terms and conditions of the agreement for sale. But, unfortunately it has been almost 4 years but the OPs, till the date of filing the case, have failed to handover the possession of the complete flat to the complainants. During such visit of the complainants to the construction site, the concerned officials present at the site kept assuring that the work would be complete and the flats would be handed over to the flat owners within the next three months. Despite passage of such several three months, the OPs miserably failed to handover the possession of the same upon completion. Finally vide letter dated 24.06.2016 the OPs had intimated the complainants to take provisional access to the apartment upon payment of the last installment together with other ancillary charges and taxes to the tune of Rs.1,21,220. Surprised by the idea of getting provisional access to the apartment and not complete possession even after nearly 4 years of delay, the complainants had written a letter to the OPs vide their letter dated 25.07.2016 stating inter alia that despite making nearly 95% of the total payment, the flat is not yet complete.
Moreover, as per terms and conditions of the agreement for sale dated 14.02.2011 the Ops ought to pay delayed charges @ 18% p.a. till realization from the date of default i.e., 13.08.2013. OPs did not bother to reply the letter dated 25.07.2016 sent by the complainants. On the contrary they gave reminders vide letter dated 16.09.2016 and 13.10.2016 to the complainants for such payment of the last installments and taking provisional access to the said apartment. Owing to such inordinate delay, upon receiving the said reminders for payment of last installment, the complainants prior to such payment had further sent emails to the OPs vide email dated 29.09.2016 and 02.12.2016 to which the OPs had replied requesting for payment of last installment. Finally, being totally frustrated with the attitude of the OPs the complainants written a letter dated 28.01.2017 listing the work which is yet to be completed namely ;
Motorable path way to be cleared from obstruction;
Completion of the garage for car parking;
Staircase rubbles/masonry left out to be removed;
Lift operation not yet ready;
Construction of Community Hall/Club House;
Thereafter, complainants sent a legal notice dated 24.04.2017 which was duly received by the OPs and the OPs replied to the same vide their letter dated 20.05.2017. Though the OPs kept sending letters to take possession till date they had not issued any possession letter. Moreover, the OPs have not handed over the completion certificate to the complainants. Upon physical inspection of the construction site it would clearly transpire that the said project is not yet complete and in habitable condition till date. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the conduct of the OPs for adopting unfair trade practices and deficiency in rendering service as a builder and owner, the complainants, finally no other alternative, have sought to initiate the instant complaint case praying for direction upon OPs to handover the possession of the complete flat as described in the Schedule A of the petition of complaint and to register and execute the deed of conveyance with respect to the flat in question in the name of the complainants upon payment of last installment. The complainants have also prayed for direction upon OPs to complete the list of incomplete work and to provide the amenities as listed in the petition of complaint along with the compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- for harassment and mental agony and for financial loss incurred together with litigation cost and further payment of compensation for delay in possession @ 18% p.a. as stipulated in Article VII Clause 7.1 of the agreement for sale dated 14.02.2011 till handing over the possession of the flat.
OPs No. 1 & 2 filed their written version to contest the case.
In their written version, OPs No. 1 & 2 denied all material allegations paragraph wise inter alia stated that the complaint case is harassing, modified, concocted, false, fabricated, oppressive, frivolous, scandalous, afterthought, baseless vexatious, imaginary, speculative with ulterior motive and wrongful gain, unnecessary and thus not sustainable.
The instant complaint case is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of OPs No. 1 & 2 thus, the instant complaint case is not maintainable.
In their written version, OPs No. 1 & 2 have also stated that OPs No. 1 & 2 are the reputed companies incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. OP company is a real estate developing company engaged in providing real estate services to the subscribers at large all over India and also in West Bengal sincerely and carefully, and maintain a goodwill and prestige in the field of real estate services being one of the largest service provider. They are very much diligent to provide services to the high extent of satisfaction to their large number of subscribers. The OP No. 1 is the registered land owner over which the suit unit has been erected. In order to develop their property, the land owner entered into one development agreement with the OP No. 2 under certain terms and conditions by the strength of which the OP No. 2 was authorized to make multistoried residential-cum-commercial building on the property and sell the shop/space/officer space/residential flats etc. in favour of intending purchasers and the OP No. 1 has appointed the OP No. 2/developer to exercise all such powers as represented thereunder. OP No. 2 got building plan sanctioned and commenced construction work of multi-storied building over the land with the right and power of absolute sale, transfer, convey alienate the constructed area by separate unit /flat, garage to the intending purchasers after taking consideration money. After completion of the construction work of the said multi-storied building as per sanctioned building plan, the person contesting OPs No. 1 & 2 have started to sell out the said constructed area to the different buyers. The petitioners being inspected the area of flat and satisfied with all respect and all relevant papers regarding building and sanctioned plan and all its common other facilities of the said building have expressed their desire to purchase one complete flat and accordingly, the complainants have entered into an agreement for sale of their respective flat and garage upon some agreed consideration money as described in the agreement for sale dated 14.02.2011. The complainants entered into an agreement for sale dated 14.02.2011 with the OPs No. 1 & 2 for purchasing the one unit/flat being No. 4G on the 4th floor, Block No. 4 measuring about 1150 sq. ft. super built up area and a covered/open car parking space on the ground floor of Lavanya situated at District North 24 Parganas, P.S. Rajarhat for a total consideration of Rs.23,20,000/-, OP No. 2 has done entire construction work over the flat of the petitioners. OPs No. 1 & 2 always performed their part of duties in respect of the agreement for sale. OPs No. 1 & 2 have also stated the Clause 7.1 and 7.2 of the agreement for sale. Further, the OPs No. 1 & 2 have stated that the complainants are aware of Article XIV 'force majeure' clause of the said agreement. None of the OPs No. 1 & 2 shall be regarded as in breach of any terms and conditions of the said agreement. If any of the parties No. 1 & 2 is prevented from performing or discharging its obligation. As per of the said agreement that is because of circumstances beyond its control inter alia;
Accumulation of rain water and unforeseen weather condition;
Temporary and permanent interruption in the supply of utilities serving the project (Lavanya) in connection with the work;
Disturbance created by local problem;
The complainants are aware that because of the said circumstancesbeyond control of the OPs No. 1 & 2, the project Lavanya was delayedfrom time to time. The allegationof being entitled to get possession and/or registration of the said flat within 13.08.2013 does not and cannotarise.Due tonon-supply of electric power, from the end of WBSEDCL. It was next toimpossibleon the part of the OPs No. 1 & 2 to complete the project in fulland for said disruption of power supply, lot of works relating to the said project has been delayed.To overcome the said crisis, the OPs No. 1 & 2 triedits best to getit shorted outand complied with all theformalitites of WBSEDCL and submitted the papers and fees as and when theWBSEDCL demanded.A series of correspondences was done with the WBSEDCL since inception.
The said factsand circumstanceshave been duly intimated to the complainants and the OPs No. 1 & 2 explained the cause of delay. The complainants have suddenly changed their mindand have suddenly came forward with the purported demand on account of alleged interest on theamount so far paid by the complainants. The OPs No. 1 & 2 arenot liable to pay in the facts and circumstances of this case. Hence, the question of payment of any sum on account of mental agony, pain andunnecessary harassment and the demand of litigation costdoes nothave anylegsto stand in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed, set aside and dismissedin limine by imposition of exemplary cost upon the complainants for filing this frivolous petition of complaint with ulterior motive and sheer mala fide intention to earn some unlawful gain out of this clandestinecomplaint. The balanceof convenience and inconveniences isabsolutely against the interest of the complainants andthe same should be summarily dismissedin limine.
It is further started in the W/V that the complainants have filed the instant case suppressingall material facts and on that score, the instant case is not maintainable in the eyeof law. The complainants are not at allthe consumers within themeaning of the CPAct, 1986. There is no serviceproviderand consumer relationship in between complainants and Ops No. 1 & 2 after default of payment of considerationmoney. The complainants have not come before this Commission with clean hands. Therefore, the instant complaint case should be dismissed in limine with exemplary cost.
Ld. Advocate forthe complainants has submitted that the complainants had purchased one unit being No. 4Gon the 4th floor of building Block No. 4 known as Lavanya measuringmore or less 1150 sq. ft. super built up area together with onecovered car parking space for a total consideration of Rs.23,20,000/- Initially, the flat was booked byproforma Ops No.3 & 4 and proforma OPs No. 3 & 4already paid a sum of Rs.5,80,000/- to the OP developer towards payment of booking money and agreement money as per agreement for sale dated 14.02.2011. Thereafter, after duly informing the OP developers and upon payment of Rs.5,80,000/- to the proforma OPs the flat was transferred by the OPs in the name of the complainants from that of the proforma Ops. Furthermore, the OPs vide letter dated 28.07.2011had sent to the complainants a copy of the said agreement for sale dated 14.02.2011 with an endorsement on the said agreement subsequently to be in favour of the said complainants. After transfer of allotment, the complainants had been receiving intimation for payment of installment and on receiving the same the complainants duly paid the sum. Till date, the complainants had paid Rs.16,89,117/- in addition to Rs.5,80,000/-which was alreadypaid by the proforma OPs.
Therefore, the Ops have already received Rs.16,89,117 + 5,80,000/- i.e., 22,69,117. The last payment was made by the complainants on 24.03.2014. As per clause of the agreement, dated 14.02.2011 it was agreed that the unitwould bedeliveredwith facilities and amenities within 24 months and6 month grace period as force majeure clause.But the OPsvide their letterdated 24.06.2016 intimated the complainants to take provisional access to the apartment instead of possession letter.Now the complainants are prayingfor handing over the possession of the complete flat along with a car parking space as described in theSchedule A of the petition of complaint along with the registration and execution ofdeed of conveyance in respect of thesaid flat in question, thecomplainants upon payment of last installment along with other reliefs as described in the petition of complaint.
Ld. Advocate for the OPs No. 1 & 2 has submittedbefore us that it is a case of sale simplicitersince the agreement dated 14.02.2011 was enteredby and between the proforma OPs No. 3 & 4 and the Ops No. 1 & 2. Therefore, this is a case of sale simpliciter. The flat in question was booked by Ops No. 3 & 4. There is no agreement for sale in between the complainantsand the Ops No. 1 & 2.
(On 23.07.201, the proforma OPs No. 3 & 4, who were the intending purchase intimated the presentcomplainants to purchase their flat and requested the OPs No. 1 & 2 to handover the possession of the flat and to make the deed of conveyance infavour of the present complainants instead of OPs No. 3 & 4. Afterendorsement on the agreement in favour of the present complainants as intending purchasers the OPs sent a new agreement to thepresent complainants on 28.07.2011 (Running Page43 of the petition of complaint). But the present complainants refused to make any agreement with the OPs. The OPsobtainedCompletion Certificate on 11.12.2015 andthey offered possession on 24.06.2016. onwards.
The present case relates to sale simpliciter. In spite of the fact that there isoutstanding amount asoffered to take over the possession in the year 2016. Therefore, the present complainants are with ulterior motive have not takenthe possession and are filed the casein the year 2017. Moreover, to assess the deficiency in service, the complainants ought to have appointedAdvocate Commissioner or Engineer Commissioner, to assess whether the flat iscomplete or not. Within the last 6 years, the complainants never pray for appointment of any expert toascertain the fact whether the flat isready or not. Therefore, he has prayed fordismissal of the complaint case with exemplary cost.
Upon hearingthe parties and on perusal of the record,it is admittedfact that the OPs No. 3 & 4,being proforma OPs, entered into the agreement for sale with the Ops on 14.02.2011 for purchasing a flatbeing No. 4G on 4th floor at the project namely, Lavanya measuringmore or less 1150 sq. ft. super built up area in theDistrict of North 24 Parganas, Rajarhat, Bishnupur No. 2 Gram Panchayat, Mouja Basina Gram, J.L. No. 31 and Touji No. 37 andcomprised in R.S. Dag No. 633 (P), 634 (P), 636, 637, 640, 648, 948, 949, 950 and 951(Para)plea and constructed at or upon a plot of land measuring about 216 satak. Thereafter, on 23.07.2011 theOPs No.1 & 2 a transferred the allotment of the flat inquestion to the present complainants and the booking money and agreementmoney of Rs.5,80,000/- paid by the proforma OPs credited in favour of the complainants on transferof said allotment.
It is evident from the letter dated 23rd July, 2011, that the OPs No. 1 & 2 have confirmed that the amount of Rs.5,80,000/- towards payment of bookingmoney and agreement money was received bythem from the proforma Ops No. 3 & 4. This letter was addressed to the complainant No. 1 for transfer of allotment of the flat in question. The letterwas issuedin respect ofapplication dated 23rd July, 2011. In this letter it is also stated bythe OPs that they are enclosing the paymentschedule of the balance payment to be made by the complainants.
Moreover, the OPs are also issued a letter dated July 28, 2011 (running page 43of the petition of complaint) wherefrom it is evident that they are enclosing the agreementpaper against the booking of the complainants for the apartment being No. 4Gon 4th floorin Block No. 4 in Lavanya. Therefore, it is in the knowledge of the OPs that when the agreement dated 14.02.2011 was in force in between the OPs No. 1 & 2and then OPs No. 3 & 4 the complainants intended to purchase the same flat and the OPsduly transferred the sameto the complainants No.1& 2 endorsing for the same on the agreement dated 14.02.2011. Therefore, the present complainants stepped into the shoes of the consumer. Therefore, the case is not at all related to sale simpliciter. In this connection, we can cite the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. LaureateBuildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CharanjitSingh.
Another plea of the OPs that the delivery of the possession of the flatto the complainants in time due to unforeseenunavoidable circumstances.But with the written version, the OPs did not annex a single scrap of paper which unavoidable circumstance and unforeseen eventsoccurred for which they prevented to completeanddeliver the same in time. The plea taken by the OPs that there made several communications with the WBSEDCL and there are series of correspondences with the WBSEDCL since inception for which their works were discarded towards completion of the project. But the copy of a singlecorrespondence has not been annexed with the written version filed by the OPs No. 1 & 2. The Ops have admitted thatthere is a delay incompletion of the project but nowhere in the written version any cogent reason was stated by the Ops No. 1 & 2. The Ld. Advocate for the OPs No. 1 & 2has drawn our attention by showingArticle No. XVI of the Agreement for Sale.
"Article XVI:Force Majeure (it is written Article XIV by way of typographical mistake):
16.1 None of the parties shall be regarded as in breach of any of the terms and conditionsof this Agreementif any of the parties is prevented from performingor discharging its obligations in terms of this agreement because of circumstances beyond its control; such'
(a) Fire or explosion
(b) Earthquakes and lighting © Accumulation of rainwater and unforeseen weather condition Owner's company lock-out Riots, civil disturbance, insurgency, enemy action or war:
Temporary or permanent, interruption in the supply or utilities serving the project in the connection with the work;
Injunction or order of any Government, civil bodies, Panchayat, Municipality or any other authority or authorities.
Disturbance created by person claiming through the Owner/Vendor or the Purchaser.
Disturbance created by local problem."
But OPs No. 1 & 2 havefailedto produce any document in support of nine reasons under Article XVI (Force Majeure Clause). The plea taken by the OPs No. 1 & 2 that the instant case relates to sale simpliciter has not been mentioned in the written version. The parites cannot go beyond the pleadings. Moreover, the Ops No. 1 & 2 have admitted, that the flat was booked by proforma Ops No. 3 & 4 and thereafter,vide their letter the flat was transferred to the present complainants. Photocopy of allthe INVOICE-CUM-DEMANDand the validMoney Receipts have been annexedwith the petition of complaint. The money receipts annexed by the complainants are not disputed by the OPs. Therefore, it is clear that the complainants have paid Rs.16,89,117/- as per payment schedule. The OPs No. 1 & 2 have also received Rs.5,80,000/- from the proforma OPs No. 3 & 4 whichwas adjusted with the present complainants. It is admitted fact thatthe consideration of the flat is Rs.23,20,000/-. Therefore,as per demand of OPs No. 1 & 2 there is only due of Rs.1,21,220/- (Email dated 16.09.2016 sent by OPs No. 1 & 2). Now thequestionis whether the OPs are entitled to give provisional access to theapartment. It is astonishing that theOPs have issuedprovisional access to theapartment instead of possession letter. Till date, OPs neither gave the physical possession of the flatnor took any initiative toexecute and register the deed of conveyance for the flat in question in the name of the complainants.
Now the question is whether there is any delay in handing over the flat in question. The time schedule to deliver the possession of the flat has been mentioned in the agreement for sale. We know that time is the essence ofcontract. As per Article VII of the agreement for sale it is categoricallymentioned the term for completion and possession.
Clause 7.1 and Article VII is reproduced as under:
ARTICLE VII : COMPLETION AND POSSESSION "The said unitshall be completed on or before24 + 6 months subject to Force Majeure with a grace period of six monthsfrom the date thereof unless prevented by circumstances beyond the control of the developer (hereinafter referred to as the (COMPLETION DATE)and possession shall be handed over to the purchaser within the completion date upon execution of the relevant Deed of Conveyance immediately thereafter by the developer in favour of the purchaser or as and when called forbythepurchaser. It is made clear that the purchaser shall be solelyliable for payment of any loss and damagethat thedeveloper as may be sustainedor suffered by reason offailure on the part of the Purchaser in getting the said Deed of Conveyance executed and registered within the timeif anyfixed for such purpose by the relevant laws of the land prevailing ormay be introducedhereinafter.However,if the developer fails to deliver possession the said unit on the completiondate, the Purchaser would be entitled to compensation @ 18% per annum on the amount of money already paid by the Purchaser."
For the sake of argument, if we take note that OPswere ready to deliver the possession of theflat on 24.06.2016, in that event also there is delay of almost 3 years from the actual date of delivery of possession as per agreement.The complainants werein expectation not theflat and car parking spacewould be delivered within 14.08.2013, but their expectation never come true till date. Therefore, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and complainant is entitled to relief for causing harassment and mental agony by the OPs. We think, since there is delay of so many years, for the finality of litigation,OPs No. 1 & 2 would compensate the complainants by giving interest @ 6% p.a. uponthe deposited amount of the complainants till the actual date of possession of the complete flat & car parking space.
Accordingly, the complaint case succeeds.
Hence, It is, ORDERD That the complaint case being No. CC/501/2017 be and the same is allowed on contest against OPs No. 1 & 2 and dismissed ex parte against proforma OPs No. 3 & 4.
OPs No. 1 & 2 are directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance of the flat in question and the car parking space as per the Second Schedule of the Agreement for Sale dated 14.02.2011 in favour of the complainants within 60 days from passing of this order upon payment of balance consideration of Rs.1,21,220/- (Rupees one lakh twenty-one thousand two hundred twenty) only.
The cost of registration will be borne by the complainants.
OPs No. 1 & 2 are also directed to deliver the physical possession of the complete flat and car parking space as per agreement to the complainants within the aforesaid stipulated period.
The OPs No. 1 & 2 are further directed to pay interest @ 6% p.a. on the deposited amount of the complainants i.e., Rs.22,69,117/- (Rupees twenty-two lakhs sixty-nine thousand one hundred seventeen)[Rs. 16,89,117 + Rs. 5,80,000] from the agreed date of the delivery i.e, 14.08.2013 till the date of actual possession of the flat to the complainants in the form of compensation.
OPs No. 1 & 2 are directed to give a copy of completion certificate to the complainants within the aforementioned stipulated period.
The OPs No. 1 & 2 are also directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only).
If the OPs No. 1 & 2 fail to comply with the order, the complainants are at liberty to put the decree into execution.
The complaint case is disposed of accordingly. [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MRS. SAMIKSHA BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL KUMAR GHOSH] MEMBER