w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Lakshmi Sarkar v/s Biswajit Bose

    Complaint Case No. 659 of 2019

    Decided On, 10 January 2022

    At, West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata


    For the Complainant: Prasanta Banerjee, Advocate. For the Opposite Party: Sayan Mitra, Advocate.

Judgment Text

The brief fact of the Complaint Case is one Gouranga Behari Bose was absolute owner of the piece and parcel of Bastu land measuring about 3 cottah 2 chittak 18 sft. Lying and situated at Mouza Santoshpur, Touzi No. 151, J.L. No. 22, comprised in R.S. Dag No. 822, R.S. Khatian No. 257 within Mouza Santoshpur, P,S. Jadavpur now Survey Park, within the limits of Kolkata Municipal Corporation under Ward No. 109 being K.M.C. premises No. 1031 Survey Park. He subsequently died leaving intestate his wife smt. Padmaboti Bose and his daughter smt. Lakshmi Sarkar. They agreed to hand over their property to the opposite party-Developer to construct the building after obtaining the Building sanction plan from the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. That Agreement was executed on 24th day of August, 2015 between said Padmaboti Bose now deceased and Smt. Lakhsmi Sarkar the Complainant herein and the said agreement was executed in the office of the District Sub-Registrar—III Alipore, South 24-Parganas and at the time of registration the value of the property has assessed and shown at Rs. 78,90,003/-. That the opposite party/developer till date did not hand over the possession of the owner’s allocation to the complainant in violation of the provision of the Agreement. That on the death of Smt. Padmaboti Bose one supplementary Agreement for Development was executed on 16th day of March, 2016 and the said supplementary agreement was also registered in the office of the District Sub-Registry Office—V Alipore, South 24-Parganas confirming the terms and condition of the earlier Agreement. That the Opposite party-Developer constructed the building and started selling out the flat out of the Developer’s allocation but did not hand over the possession to the Complainant in respect of owner’s allocation which constitutes a case of negligence and deficiency in service.

On this aspect, Complainant filed the instant case on 28.08.2019 praying for directing the O.P to deliver the owner’s allocation as per agreement/CC/& compensation.

Perused the two averments dated 24.08.2015 and 16.03.2016 and other correspondences. It appears from record that initially on 05.01.2021 one Advocate filed vakalatnama on behalf of sole O.P but subsequently WV was not filed and the case runs ex parte.

As per terms of the Agreement, OP is under obligation to deliver the owner’s allocation on expiry of stipulated time.

On evaluation of materials on record, it transpires that the Complainant being ‘consumer’ as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act hired the services of OP No. 1 on consideration and OP has failed to fulfil their part of obligations as per Agreement and thereby deficient in rendering services towards the Complainant within the meaning of Section 2(1)(g) read with Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. Therefore, the Complainant is entitled to some reliefs.

With the above discussion, I dispose of the complaint ex parte with the following directions-

The Opposite Par

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ty is directed to deliver the owner’s allocation in favour of Complainant within 60 days from date after obtaining Completion Certificate. The Opposite Party is directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to Complainant. The Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation to the Complainant.