State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri Dipak J. Kamdar, Kolkata-26 vs Laxmi Pat Surana, Kolkata-26 on 29 January, 2013
DRAFT State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO.FA/123/2011 (Arising out of order dated 16/12/10 in Case No.405/2007 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata-I) DATE OF FILING:08/03/11 DATE OF FINAL ORDER:29/01/13 APPELLANTS : 1) Dipak J. Kamdar 2) Mina D. Kamdar 3) Rajendra Linga 4) Sarita Linga 5) Prakash Bothra 6) Padmasree Bothra 7) P. C. Rampuria 8) Amaraw Rampuria 9) Dipak Mirani 10) Hina Mirani 11) Pratap K. Thakkar 12) Sobhna P. Thakkar All reside at 109/3, Hazra Road Kolkata-700 026 RESPONDENTS : 1) Laxmi Pat Surana 2) Hem Raj Surana Both reside at 109/3, Hazra Road Kolkata-700 026 Also at 12, Bonfield Lane Kolkata-700 001 BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE : Sri Kalidas Mukherjee President HONBLE MEMBER : Sri S. Coari HONBLE MEMBER : Smt. M. Roy FOR THE APPELLANTS : Mr. Barun Prasad Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENTS : None appeared : O R D E R :
HONBLE JUSTICE SRI KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I in case no.405/2007 allowing the complaint and directing the OPs to install proper main gate of the complex in question, to demarcate the car parking space among the eligible flat owners and to take necessary steps for formation of the Association of the flat owners and also for demolition of the shop rooms from the residential complex, if necessary with the police help within 45 days from the date of communication of the order. The OPs have been directed to pay compensation of Rs.500/- to each of the complainants and litigation cost of Rs.8,000/- jointly to the complainants within 45 days failing which the amount will carry interest @ 9% till realization.
The case of the complainants/appellants, in short, is that the agreement for sale was entered into between the parties and possession was handed over to the complainants in respect of their respective flats. The respective deeds of conveyance were also executed and registered. But there are some unfinished works as per Para 12 of the complaint. The unfinished works are as follows:
a) Installation of a proper Main Gate. b) Installation of Generator in the Generator Room. c) Intercom and Fire Saving Equipment in the building. d) Opening of Toilet and Bathroom in the back portion of the building for common use. e) Demarcation of car parking space. f) Handing over of
keys of the Lift Room and Electric Meter Space to the Security Guard of the building and maintenance of lift.
g) Proper wiring of Telephone wires. h) Formation of society of the flat owners. i) Removal of shop
room from the ground floor of the premises.
The estimated cost of unfinished works for Clause (a) to (i) is Rs.1,60,000/-. The complaint was filed before the Learned District Forum for completion of the unfinished works valued at Rs.1,60,000/- approximately.
The Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the complainants are aggrieved by the impugned judgment passed by the Learned District Forum on the ground that the compensation is inadequate and, secondly, some of the unfinished works do not find place in the ordering portion of the judgment.
None appeared for the respondents in this appeal.
We have heard the submission made by Learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the papers on record. The Learned District Forum has observed that the complainants should have been more diligent in filing the complaint and a list of unfinished works was furnished by the complainants, but the same was not authenticated by any surveyor/engineer. The Learned District Forum further observed that the break up of expenditure has not been put forward. The question necessarily arises whether the OPs did not complete the work and/or the facilities as per the terms of the agreement for sale.
Admittedly, possession was delivered and deeds of conveyance have been executed and registered. Now if there are some unfinished works those are to be substantiated by inspection through surveyor/engineer as observed by the Learned District Forum. But that was not done by the complainants. Under such circumstances, we are of the considered view that without ascertaining the extent of unfinished works vis--vis the agreement for sale, no effective adjudication can be made. It is, therefore, a fit case for sending the case to the Learned District Forum on remand.
We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment passed by the Learned District Forum. The case is sent back on remand to the Learned District Forum. The Learned District Forum will give an opportunity to the complainants to apply for inspection by surveyor or engineer so as to ascertain the extent of the unfinished works vis--vis the agreement for sale. The Learned District Forum will thereafter proceed to dispose of the case according to law. The appeal is thus disposed of accordingly.
MEMBER(SC) MEMBER(L) PRESIDENT