Shyamal Kumar Ghosh, Member

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed by the complainants praying for order of injunction as well as an order in respect of restraining the opposite party from making any construction on the portion of the land which has been kept vacant for the purpose of construction of various amenities such as indoor games, swimming pool, kids play zone, community hall, gymnasium etc.
2. The instant application has been taken up for hearing.
3. Ld advocate appearing for the complainants has argued that the execution and registration of the deed of conveyances have already been completed in favour of the complainants. But the opposite party, as per deed of conveyance, has failed to provide various amenities such as lift facility, swimming pool, club, gymnasium etc to the complainants. Rather the opposite party has tried to construct a new accommodation at the place/land which has been kept for construction of aforesaid amenities. In this regard the ld advocate has requested the Commission to note down the paragraph no – 17 of the written objection filed by the opposite party. The ld advocate has also submitted that if the construction work is started forthwith upon the said plot of land, the complainants will suffer irreparable loss and injury. Accordingly the ld advocate has prayed for interim stay in order to prevent the opposite party.
4. The ld advocate appearing for the opposite party has filed written objection and argued that if the stay order is passed in respect of the aforesaid property, the opposite party will be highly prejudiced. Ld advocate also argued that the various amenities which are stated by the ld advocate appearing for the complainants, have already been provided to the complainants. So there is no need to pray for interim/permanent stay order in respect of aforesaid property. The instant interlocutory application has no basis at all and as such the ld advocate has prayed for dismissal of the instant application with exemplary costs.
5. We have heard the ld advocate for both sides at length and in full.
6. We have considered the submissions of the ld advocates.
7. We have also perused the materials available on the record.
8. The argument in respect of aforesaid interlocutory application has been concluded.
9. It is admitted that the separate deed of conveyance has already been executed and registered in favour of the respective complainants therein. Upon careful perusal of the deed of conveyance, it appears to us that the apartment details, the part of deed of conveyance, clearly indicate that each and every complainant is entitled to get the various amenities such as lift facility, swimming pool, club, Gymnasium etc. But at this juncture, it is the allegations of the complainants that the opposite party has failed to provide the same as per clear specifications mentioned in the aforesaid deed of conveyance.  
10. Having heard the ld advocate appearing for the opposite party and upon careful perusal of the written objection we do not find any whisper for providing the aforesaid amenities to the complainants till date. Rather no cogent evidence, in respect of providing the various amenities to the complainants, has been mentioned in the said written objection filed by the opposite party.
11. Be it mentioned here that the Consumer Protection Act has been enacted exclusively for the better interest of the consumer and as such the necessary protection should be given to the complainants from the hazard goods and services. So, under such grave situation we cannot throw out the prayer of the complainants at present.
12. In pursuant to the paragraph no – 17 of the written objection, it is clear to us that a new construction has already been started on the plot of the opposite party and at present it should be the duty of the Commission to observe the matter whether the complainants are deprived or not in respect of getting the various amenities as per deed of conveyance.
13. At this juncture, we think that there is a prima facie case against the opposite party and as such we are constrained to allow the instant interlocutory application on contest against the opposite parties with no order as to costs.
14. Accordingly both parties are hereby directed to maintain status quo in respect of property mentioned in the scheduled of injunction application filed by the Complainants till disposal of the aforesaid consumer case.
15. The instant interlocutory application stands disposed of.
16. Note accordingly.