State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Nishant S. Thakkar, Mumbai-400 053 vs Bengal Peerless Housing Development ... on 30 May, 2012
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO.CC/73/2012 DATE OF FILING:21/05/12 DATE OF ORDER:
30/05/12 COMPLAINANT : Mr. Nishant S. Thakkar 704, Homestead Lodhandwala Complex Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 053 OPPOSITE PARTY : Bengal Peerless Housing Development Company Ltd.
6/1A, Moira Street Mangal Deep, Ground floor Kolkata-700 017 BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE : Sri Kalidas Mukherjee President HONBLE MEMBER : Sri S. Coari FOR THE COMPLAINANT :
In person Ld. Advocate FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY :
: O R D E R :
No.2/30.05.12 HONBLE JUSTICE SRI KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT This order relates to the hearing on the point of admission of this complaint case. This complaint has been filed by Mr. Nishant S. Thakkar, against Bengal Peerless Housing Development Co. Ltd. The verification has been signed by Mr. Sailesh Thakkar, constituted Attorney of the complainant. It appears that earlier complaint case bearing no.CC/08/63 filed by the complainant was finally disposed of directing the OP to treat the complainant as the allottee as an admitted nominee in place of deceased allottee and also to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance within two months and deliver possession of the dwelling units concerned in favour of the complainant on his completion of formalities with the Co-operative Society both in respect of past dues as is required in accordance with law.
It has been submitted that complainant paid all the dues and thereafter the OP executed and registered the Deed of Conveyance in favour of complainant. It is submitted that as per letter dated 7th February, 2012 appearing on Page-302 of the annexure to the complaint, the OP asked the complainant to pay the sum of Rs.19,050/- as guarding charges along with service tax of Rs.1,962/- and documentation charges of Rs.400/- along with service tax amounting to Rs.41/-. It is contended that the OP cannot claim this amount as per letter dated 07/02/12 and that the OP has not yet delivered possession of the flat to the complainant although the Deed of Conveyance has been executed and registered. It is contended that the complainant had to pay excess amount for the delay caused by the OP for which the instant complaint has been filed praying for compensation on the ground of unfair trade practice, and for delivery of possession.
It has been submitted that the complainant may be directed to deposit the sum of Rs.21,453/- with the State Commission and a direction may be given to the OP to hand over possession of the flat in favour of the complainant.
It appears from the judgment of the earlier complaint case no.CC/08/63 that the case was finally disposed of directing the OP to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance and deliver possession in favour of the complainant in respect of the flat in question on completion of formalities with the Co-operative Society in respect of past dues. It is the contention of the complainant that the guarding charges etc. are not the lawful dues. It is further submitted that in the instant case the complainant has prayed for a declaration that the OP has indulged in unfair trade practice and is guilty of deficiency in service; compensation of Rs.35,79,028/- with the prayer for depositing Rs.21,453/- with the State Commission as demanded by the OP and for issuance of an interim order directing the OP to hand over possession of the flat in question in favour of the complainant.
We have perused the materials on record. We find that in the earlier complaint case delivery of possession was one of the prayers which was allowed. In the instant case the delivery of possession has again been prayed for. From the materials on record it further appears that the OP has already executed the Deed of Conveyance and it was registered on 3rd February, 2012.
Since the earlier complaint case was disposed of finally with specific directions including delivery of possession, the fresh complaint case for delivery of possession and other reliefs cannot be entertained as it would widen the scope of the case which was decided earlier. The points which had already been decided cannot be reopened.
We are, therefore, of the considered view that the instant complaint case cannot be admitted and the same stands dismissed being not maintainable.
MEMBER(SC) PRESIDENT