DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
North 24 Pgs., BARASAT
C.C. No./128/2021
Date of Filing Date of Admission Date of Disposal
16.08.2021 20.09.2021 31.07.2024
Complainant/s:- | Debashis Kanjijal, S/o Dulal Krishna Kanjilal of Flat No. 101 at SANTI MANSION at Sarojini Pally, P.O – Nabapally, Barasat (P.S) District – North 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700126. -Vs.- |
Opposite Party/s:- | - The Manager and / or Office In Charge
BRINDABAN ENTERPRISE of 723/1/4, Vivek Nagar Middle Row @ Viveknagar Road, P.O – Noapara, P.S – Barasat, District – North 24 Parganas, Kol – 700125. - AVIJIT GUPTA, S/o Late SUKUMAR GUPTA, Bhatrapally, P.O –Nabapally, P.S – Barasat, District North 24 Parganas, Kol – 700126.
- SRI SAILEN GUHA, S/o Late Kalipada Guha, Pioneer Park, P.O & P.S. – Barasat, District – North 24 Parganas, Kol – 700124.
- SRI SHYMAL KANTI SAHA, S/o Late Haridas Saha of 3 No. Bangur Avenue, P.S – Lake Town, P.O – Beleghata, Kolkata – 700055.
|
P R E S E N T :- Sri. Daman Prosad Biswas……….President.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu…………………. Member.
JUDGMENT /FINAL ORDER
Complainant above named filed this complaint U/s 34 (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the aforesaid Opposite Parties praying for direction for providing covered car parking space as per agreement, issue of possession certificate, compensation amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/-, cost of the case amounting to Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 2,00,000/- for unnecessary harassment.
He alleged that one development agreement was executed in between Complainant and Opposite Parties on 20/09/2017 for necessary development work in a joint venture mode at the premises mentioned in the schedule of the complaint. He had been given the part of owner’s allocation as a residential flat in habitable condition for living purpose with necessary possession certificate in the month of November 2019. That possession certificate was signed by necessary parties without any date.
He further alleged that he is entitled to get a covered car parking space measuring about 150 sq.ft. area. But Complainant has actually been allotted an uncovered car parking space with the value of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Complainant on several occasions approached before the Opposite Parties for covered car parking space with proper wall up but Opposite Parties not yet provided the same.
Complainant sent a legal notice but did not get any fruitful result. Even the O.Ps not yet provide the possession certificate in proper format. Hence, the Complainant filed this case.
O.P no. 1-4 appeared in this record and filed W/V and denied the entire allegations and further contended that car parking has already been provided to the Complainant. He prayed for dismissal of the case.
We have heard the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant and Ld. Advocate for the O.Ps at length. Perused the petition of complaint, W/V filed by the O.Ps, affidavit-in-chief filed by Complainant, questionnaire filed by the O.Ps, answers filed by the Complainant.
Contd. To page no. 2 . . . ./
: : 2 : :
C.C. No./128/2021
Decisions with Reasons:-
O.Ps did not file separate affidavit – in – chief. They filed a petition praying their W/V as affidavit – in – chief and that has been allowed. Complainant filed questionnaire and O.Ps filed answers.
During hearing Ld. Advocate for the O.Ps submits that they already provided covered garage with specification. He produced colour print photograph of the garage which contains the vehicle of the Complainant. It appears from the photograph that said garage is a covered garage.
During hearing Ld. Advocate for the Complainant admits the same and further contended that Complainant has no grievance at present about the garage.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant further argued that possession certificate which was given to the Complainant does not contain any date and for that reason it cannot be said as valid document.
In reply Ld. Advocate for the O.Ps argued that they will issue another document mentioning the date of issue.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant further argued that Completion Certificate not yet been handed over in his favour. Ld. Advocate for the O.Ps argued that they will provide the same in due course.
On perusal of petition of complaint we find that Complainant did not make any prayer for completion certificate and for that reason this Commission is unable to pass any order on this point.
On perusal of record we find that Complainant is the consumer and O.Ps are the service provider.
Having regard to the aforesaid discussion it is clear before us that Complainant has able to established his grievance by sufficient documents beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, Complainant is entitled to relief as per his prayer.
In the result, present case succeeds.
Hence,
It is
Ordered:-
That the present case be and the same vide no. CC/128/2021 is allowed on contest against the O.Ps with cost of Rs. 3,000/- (three thousand) to be paid by O.Ps in favour of the Complainant.
O.Ps jointly or severally are directed to hand over fresh possession certificate mentioning the date of issue and mentioning the date from which Complainant is in possession positively within 45 days from this day, failing which the Complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
As O.Ps have already been provided covered parking area with specification in favour of the Complainant during pendency of this case and Complainant is in possession of the same till date so no order is passed on this point.
O.Ps jointly or severally are further directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) in favour of the Complainant for his mental pain and agony positively within 45 days from this day, failing which Complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.
Dictated and Corrected by me
President
Member President
