DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL FORUM
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C. C. CASE NO. 107/2015
Date of Filing: Date of Admission Date of Disposal:
06.02.2015 13.02.2015 08.07.2015
PETITIONER = Vs. = O.Ps.
Mouban Co-Operative Housing Society Sri Subhendu Chandra
Represenbted by its Secretary Flat No-21, P-227-C.I.T.
Mst. Jebunnesa Alam Scheme-VII (M), Bidhannagar,
2/2 EK-DIL SHA Road, Kolkata-700054.
West, Barasat, Dist- North 24 parganas
At present Flat No-104, Block-B,
Geetanjali Apartment,
3-Jessore Road,
P.O. & P.S.-Barasat,
Kolkata-700124.
J U D G E M E N T
Facts of the case, in short, is that the complainant is Secretary of Mouban Housing Co-Operative Society Ltd, having its office at 2/2, EK. DIL, SHA Road, West, Barasat, North 24 Parganas. The Mouban Housing Co-Operative Society by his registered name formed Co-Operative Housing Society under the Society Registration Act.
Complainant stated that upon proper requirements the concerned office of HIDCO allotted plot at Rajarhat New Township Projects, 25th September, 2001, under reference No-HIDCO/ADMN-127/2000/MC-1/2/B01-39/DC-54, issued by General Manager (Administration) of the said Department, addressing to the complainant over the issues of letter of allotment of plot of land to co-operative society in the MIG category as confirmed in the name of Mouban Housing Co-Operative Society, Plot of land measuring 335 sq. m (5.01) cottah more or less in action area-1 New Town Kolkata being allotted plot no-054 Block D/C, in action Area-1, of New Town, Calcutta.
Complainant also stated that she being learnt from a person approached the OP for building plan as per rules of HIDCO and allied works the OP claiming himself to one B.E. (Cal) ME (CAL) MIE(1) entered into an agreement with the complainant to do all works at Rs 55, 000/- and accordingly under some written forms on Rs 10/- non judicial Stamp papers the OP received total amount of Rs 60, 000/- on demand from the complainant on several dates out of them on 11.03.2012 received Rs 10, 000/-, towards all acts and works including soil Test charge for obtaining sanctioned plan form HIDCO, on 31.03.2012, Rs 5, 000/-, from Mouban Housing Co-Operative Society, on 08.05.2012, received Rs 5, 000/- , by OP Rs 20, 000/- , for structural outstanding on 14.05.2012, received Rs 20, 000/-, for structural outstanding on 16.06.2012, received Rs 15, 000/- , for soil testing under such manner the OP received Rs 55, 000/- , form the complainant. Thereafter the OP went to plot inspection again insisted to take further sum of Rs 5, 000/-, 16.06.2013, for revised Arotis fee for final plan on 16.06.2013 received Rs 5, 000/- , for revised Arctis fee final plan.
Complainant further stated that she at several times went to the respective address of the OP with an earnest request to do all things as per written terms of Non-Judicial Stamp paper, but the OP paid no heeds to the complainant non refunded the said amount rather in the first week of July-2013, when the complainant meet with the OP and asked for the proper all acts and works including soil test for obtaining sanctioned plan from HIDCO then the OP demanded more sum of Rs 70, 000/- , the complainant demanded her inability rather the OP blatantly refused to do any work as promised etc, finding no other alternative way the complainant was compelled to sent legal notice through Lawyer to the respective address of OP stating the claiming as inter-alia: Under your instruction and on behalf of my above named client that my above named Mouban Housing Co-Operative Society got one plot being no-DC-54, measuring 335.58 sq. m Police Station –New Town, Dist- North 24 Parganas, in lottery which was subsequently registered by HIDCO in favour of said Mouban Housing Co-Operative Society. Being learnt from a person approached you for building plan as per Rules of HIDCO and allied works, you claiming to be one BE (Cal) ME (Cal) MIE (1) entered into an agreement to do all works at Rs 55, 000/- and on 11.03.2012, on getting Rs 10, 000/- declared and wrote as “Received Rs 10, 000/- , from the Society, Mouban Housing Co-Operative Society out of Rs 55, 000/- , towards all acts and works including soil test etc, for obtaining sanction plan from HIDCO. Hence the complaint.
OP has contested the case by filing written version.
OP stated that the complainant is a Co-Operative Housing Society and hence this Ld. Court is lack of jurisdiction to try the alleged dispute. This matter suffers from non-joinder. The registrar, W.B. Co-Operative Society made a party.
OP also stated that OP here is a Civil Engineer and has obtained his Engineering Degree from Shibpur B.E. College and M.E. Structural Degree from Shibpur B.E. College, Member of Institution of Engineers (India). Chartered Engineer (India) and Part Time Ex-Faculty Member of Birla Institute of Technology and Science. Pilani, Rajasthan and Ex-Visiting Lecturer of Techno India Group, Kolkata. Enrolled as Civil and Structural and Geotechnical Engineer in the New Town Kolkata Development Authority. He joined as Assistant Engineer in “Kolkata Improvement Trust” in 1976 and retired from K.I.T. as an Executive Engineer in the year 2010 and he is a respectable man of repudiation and a law abiding citizen of India. After his retirement he enrolled his name in the New Town, Kolkata Development Authority as stated above and has started practicing as Consulting Engineer.
Point for Decision:-
Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
We have carefully gone through the materials on record. Both parties submitted affidavit in chief. According to the OP, complainant never issued OP any engagement/appointment letter inspite of repeated requests by the OP nor did the complainant take any initiative to execute in supervision agreement mandatory requirement under rules 17 of New Town, Kolkata Development Authority inspite of the several requests of the OP even supplying a copy of the said rule to the complainant. The complainant paid to the OP Rs 15, 000/- for Architectural drawing (Rs 10, 000/- on 11.03.2012 and Rs 5, 000/- on 31.03.2012) for structural drawing and computer aided analysis Rs 25, 000/-, (Rs 5, 000/- on 08.05.2012 & Rs 20, 000/- on 14.05.2012) for soil testing (Rs 15, 000/- on 16.06.2012) and (Rs 5, 000/- on 16.06.2013) for additional & alternation of Architectural plan. The total amount paid by the complainant is Rs 60, 000/-. Accordingly the obligation of the OP ceases of and when the complainant takes delivery of the structural drawings and structural analysis and Architectural drawing. Since no engagement letter was issued to the OP was/is not in a position to undergo the work of the soil test by engaging concerned people expert for the job who will did holes at different locations of land of about 50 feet depth of soil. The complainant paid Rs 5, 000/- beyond Rs 55, 000/- due to some addition and
alternation of Architectural drawing. The OP has never asked for any further amount from the complainant. There is no deficiency in service or negligence by OP. There is no unfair trade practice by OP.
We have perused all the documents and applied our anxious thought over the matter and we are of the view that complainant is a Co-operative Housing Society and there is separate Forum to try this type of cases. In our view the complaint is not maintainable in this Forum. After going through the documents and evidence in chief of the parties we are of the view that there is no merit in this case. Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Hence
It is ordered,
that the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P.
Parties to bear their own cost.
Let copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied for.
Member President
Dictated & Corrected by me.
