Case No. CC/269/2019
COMPLAINANT :1. Biplab Sakrar
S/O. Bijoy Sarkar,
Address: “Uma Apartment” Flat No.-1C,
1st floor, Situated at Holding No.29,
Old Baharampur Road,
Shyamsundar Para,
P.O. & P.S. Ranaghat,Dist. Nadia
Pin-741201.
V-E-R-S-U-S
OPPOSITE PARTIES / 1.Partners /Delveopers,
M/S. Surya Construction,
Local Office at “Uma Apartment”,
4th Floor, Old Baharampur Road,
Shyamsundar Para
P.O. & P.S.-Ranaghat, Dist.- Nadia
Pin- 741201 and having
Registered Office at “Om Apartment”
B-118, Diamond Park
Ground Floor,
P.O. Joka, P.S. Haridebpur
Kolkata – 700104.
Ld. Advocate(s)
For Complainant: Raju Goswami
For OP/OPs : Satyabrata Ghosh
(2)
Date of filing of the case :07.08.2019
Date of Disposal of the case :22.09.2023
Final Order / Judgment dtd.22.09.2023
Complainant above named filed this complaint against the aforesaid opposite party u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for direction to the OP to refund entire excess consideration money amounting to Rs.2,12,772/- plus bank interest till realisation to the complainant. He also prayed for Rs.95,000/- as cost of colour and painting, Rs.40,000/- as cost of transformer Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation, cost of the case and other reliefs.
He alleged that he purchased one flat vide sale deed being number I-012406/17 dated 30.11.2017 from the OP through bank loan. Area of the said flat is 699.33 Sq.ft. After adding 20% super built up area it comes to 839.14 Sq. ft. Value per Sq. ft. is 2086 and total value of the flat comes to Rs.17,50,446/-. Complainant measured the area of the said flat by a Civil Engineer and as per such measurement it was found that cover area is 614.28 Sq.ft. and super built up area is 737 Sq. ft. So it was found that OP took value of extra 102 Sq. ft. area amounting to Rs.2,12,772/-. As per point number 6 of the agreement, OP promised that the drive ways should be provided to the complainant. But OP did not provide the same. Even did not provide a space for two wheeler. Freeways of the right side of the building was blocked by a high-tension electrical transformer of 65 K.V within two feet adjacent of the flat illegally and not followed Electricity Act, 2003 and West Bengal Municipal Building Rules. It is dangerous for life and safety. He tampered the building plan and illegally constructed three separate flat in the ground floor. Complainant could not move freely and not having any sufficient space for car or byke parking. OP constructed the building by standard less costly brick instead of first class brick. He Provided Grill by standard rot iron instead of steel Grill. Wall of inside of the flat and roof was damped within one month of possession. No collapsible gate and door lock was provided. Stair case and stair railing was very weak and poor quality. Standing base of the lift made with substandard plywood and accident may happen any time. Used marble quality is very substandard and makes are cracked with scratched marked. Water supply condition is very poor standard. Very recently complainant compelled to pay Rs.20,000/- for installation of water supply equipment. Colours of inner wall, door and windows were not provided and complainant has paid Rs.95,000/- for colouring of inside of the flat. OP forcefully installed electric transformer of 65 K.V within one feet of the flat. Valuation of the flat was increased by Rs.40,000/- due to wrongly mentioning of the location. Hence he files this case.
OP contesting the case by filing a W/V. He denied the entire allegations which mentioned in the petition of complaint. He further stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. He categorically stated his line of defence. He produced Xerox copy of document.
(3)
TRIAL
On 22.11.2022 was fixed for evidence. On that date complainant was absent without any steps. Case was adjourned for the ends of justice. On the next date that is on 11.01.2023 complainant was also absent without any steps. He was asked to file show cause by 31.03.2023 as to why necessary order shall not be passed against him. On 31.01.2023 he did not file show cause. On the next date that is on 27.02.2023 he filed show cause and that was accepted. On 17.03.2023 he prayed for adjournment and that was allowed with cost of Rs.100. But on the very next date that is on 03.05.2023 he was again found absent and was directed to file show cause by 06.06.2023. On 06.06.2023 he prayed for adjournment and that was allowed with cost of Rs.300/-. On 07.07.2023 complainant paid cost of Rs.300/- and filed show cause and that was accepted with cost of Rs.400. On 04.08.2023 complainant was absent without any steps and on the very next date that is on 08.09.2023 complainant was also absent without any steps. On 08.09.2023 OP was present. Hence, next date that is 22.09.2023 has been fixed for final order/judgment.
On perusal of record, we find that complainant did not pay cost of Rs.100/- as per order dated 17.03.2023. We also find that complainant did not pay cost of Rs.400/- as per order dated 07.07.2023.
Documents
Complainant at the time of filing of this case only filed Xerox copy of agreement for sale dated 16.08.2016.
OP filed some documents (Xerox) with his W/V.
Brief Notes of Argument
Both parties did not file BNA.
Decision with Reasons
It is main allegation of the complainant that OP did not provide the facilities which he agreed in the document for sale. He alleged that he did not get 839.14 Sq. ft. super built up area as per aforesaid agreement. He also alleged that OP was agreed to make construction by first class picate but he made construction by substandard less black ash. OP did not provide the Grill as per agreement. He did not provide collapsible gate and door lock. He did not provide marble in proper quality and he did not provide the colours of inner walls, doors and windows.
(4)
To prove the aforesaid allegation, aforesaid building should be inspected by the competent authority. But complainant did not file any application before this Commission for examination of the aforesaid building.
In absence of report of any competent person, it is not possible for this Commission to believe the allegation of the complainant.
Moreover, complainant did not file any original document in support of his contention. Even he did not file the original copy of agreement relating to aforesaid transaction.
On perusal of record, we find that complainant is the consumer and OP is the service provide.
Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, it is clear before us that complainant has failed to established his grievance by sufficient documents beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly complainant is not entitled to any relief as per his prayer.
In the result, present case fails.
Hence,
It is
Ordered
that the present case be and the same is dismissed on contest but without any order as to costs.
Let a copy of this final order be supplied to both the parties as free of costs.
Dictated & corrected by me
............................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri DAMAN PROSAD BISWAS,) ..................... ..........................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri DAMAN PROSAD BISWAS,)
We concur,
........................................ .........................................
MEMBER MEMBER
(NIROD BARAN ROY CHOWDHURY) (MALLIKA SAMADDAR)
