State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Samir Bhattacharjee vs Shyamal Chakraborty & Another on 25 April, 2022
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/716/2019 ( Date of Filing : 01 Oct 2019 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 14/08/2019 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/40/2019 of District Rajarhat) 1. Samir Bhattacharjee 17, Kalidas Lahiri Lane, P.O. Baranagar, P.S. Baranagar, Kolkata - 700 036. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Shyamal Chakraborty & Another 56/C, Atul Krishna Banerjee Lane, P.O. & P.S. - Baranagar, Kolkata - 700 036. 2. Unicon Engineers & Contractors 56/C, Atul Krishna Banerjee Lane, P.O. & P.S. Baranagar, Kolkata - 700 036. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. SAMIKSHA BHATTACHARYA MEMBER PRESENT: None Appears ......for the Appellant None Appears ......for the Respondent Dated : 25 Apr 2022 Final Order / Judgement SAMIKSHA BHATTACHARYA, MEMBER
The instant appeal has been directed by the Appellant/Complainant under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 14.08.2019 passed by Ld. Additional Consumer Disputes Redressal District Commission, Rajarhat (New Town) in CC/40 of 2019.
The case of the Complainant, in brief is that OP No.1/Respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as 'OP No. 1') is an LBS and carrying out a business to prepare building plan, site plan and sketch etc. under the name and style Unicon, the OP No. 2. The undertaking was executed on 14.09.2018 between the OP No. 1 and the Respondent in stamp paper for preparing the building plan and site plan in respect of piece of landed property with a dilapidated building lying and situated at 212, Swamiji Sarani, P.O. -Ghugu Danga, under Police Station - Dum Dum, Kolkata-700 030. The name of the legal heirs of the said landed property was mentioned in the said undertaking dated 14.09.2018. Accordingly, the Complainant paid Rs. 500/- on 17.07.2018 to OP No.1. On 24.07.2018 an amount of Rs. 100/- was paid when the Complainant visited the house of OP No. 1 for which no receipt was given by OP No.1. It was agreed that Rs. 5500/- would be paid in two installments and Rs. 1000/- as advance payment. Simultaneously, the Complainant had given a pendrive to O.P. No. 1 to receive the soft copy of building plan and site plan. Instead of repeated requests the OP No. 1 did not give the soft copy files to the Complainant.
As per the undertaking dated 14.09.2018 the OP No. 1 called the Complainant on 23.11. 2018 over phone and informed that the concerned building plan, site plan along with tracing copies of the same from the Autocad software were ready to be delivered. The Complainant went to the residence of OP No. 1 but the materials were not delivered by the OP No.1.Then the OP No. 1 took the Complainant to a Computer Expert at Tobin Road, to verify the soft copy files in the pen drive on 24.09.2018 where the file of the building plan was shown but not on the full screen of the computer. When the Complainant verified the hardcopy of the building plan in presence of the OP No.1 the Complainant noticed two discrepancies viz. the soak pit was not shown and sketched in the said building plan and in the last column of the plan showed "Proposed building of a three storied residential building of Smt. Swapna Bhattacharjee and others" instead of five different names. On 29.09.2018 the concerned hard copy was delivered to the Complainant and the Complainant paid Rs. 3900/- as the last and final installment. The Complainant has alleged the deficiency in service against the OP No. 1 and for that reason filed the complaint petition praying for a direction upon the OPs to rectify the ratio of the septic tank of the building plan and the tracing copy of the same along with direction upon OP to deliver the concerned pen drive duly showing the building plan and site plan in terms of the undertaking dated 14.09.2018 along with consequential relief.
Ld. District Commission at the time of admission hearing on 07.08.2019 observed that regarding construction and the development purposes the Complainant had availed of services for preparation of the building plan and in the undertaking dated 14.09.2018 the Complainant has disclosed the names of the other owners of the said property who are admittedly the brothers and sisters of the Complainant as well as the legal heirs of the deceased. Ld. District Commission gave the opportunity to the Complainant to add the names of the other legal heirs in the complaint petition as co-complainants. Accordingly, the next date was given on 14.08.2019 to take necessary steps by the Complainant. But the Complainant did not take any step to incorporate the names of the other legal heirs in the case.
On the date of final hearing before this Commission, Complainant has elaborately stated his case, but failed to give any satisfactory reply on the point why he had not made the other legal heirs as parties of the case. Since in the undertaking dated 14.09.2018 the property belongs to all the owners/legal heirs, Complainant had to incorporate the names of the legal heirs. Therefore, the Ld. District Commission had no other alternative but to dismiss the complainant case being not maintainable since the complaint suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties.
It is pertinent to mention that the Ld. District Commission, for the interest of justice, has given the opportunity to the Complainant to approach before the Competent Court and/or Forum along with other co-owners of the said landed property, if not barred otherwise.
Therefore, we find no illegality or material irregularity in the order passed by the Ld. ACDRC, Rajarhat (New Town). The view taken by the Ld. District Commission, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Commission.
Thus, the appeal, being devoid of any merit, is hereby rejected.
In view of above the appeal is disposed of accordingly. [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MRS. SAMIKSHA BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER