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

M/s. Paras Construction & Others v/s Shabnam Ahmed & Others

    First Appeal No. 740 of 2016
    Decided On, 29 December 2021
    At, West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
    By, MEMBER
    For the Appellants: Farah Anjum, Advocate. For the Respondents: Imran Siddiqui, Advocate.

Judgment Text
Ishan Chandra Das, President

This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 23-12-2015, passed by erstwhile Ld. DCDRF, Kolkata Unit-II in CC/222/2015 where Ld. DCDRF while disposing of the same allowed it on contest without cost, directed the OPs to hand over the sanctioned building plan, the completion certificate of the structure and hand over the sewerage and drainage sanctioned plan of the KMC within 90 days from the date of the order with default clause, held the OPs jointly and severally liable to collect the permission and license for running the lift from the Authority of the Government, allowed the OPs to collect service charges and maintenance charges of the lift from the complainants if they are permitted to enjoy the lift facility but with default clause, to keep the ground floor area and the garbage in the open space premises, neat and clean etc.

Being aggrieved by such judgment and order the OP of CC/222/2015 preferred this appeal.

The case of the complainants/respondents (and hereinafter referred to as the complainants) was that the complainants were the owners of flat in G+4 storied building at premises no. 14A Linton Street, P.S. – Beniapukur and the appellants/OPs (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) were the owners of the said property who developed the property by their own fund, labours and materials etc. The complainants purchased the flats at the scheduled property from the OPs by registered deeds of conveyance, as described in Schedule-II of the petition and at the time of Agreement for Sale between the parties, the OPs undertook to install lift after taking license from the statutory and non-statutory bodies, and to furnish the building completion certificate obtaining from the office of the KMC, to have drainage and other connections from the office of the KMC etc. The complainants entered into such agreement and purchased the scheduled flat upon paying full consideration amount on good faith that the above referred conditions, representation and undertaking given by the OPs will be provided within due time. But the OPs, at the time of execution of the final deed of conveyance though undertook to complete and comply the conditions including the completion certificate, drainage connection etc. from the office of the KMC and license of setting up of a lift from the Competent Authority but they did not do so. The complainants waited for long but the OPs despite the complainants’ personal approach failed to comply their obligation, as noted earlier and on the contrary caused obstruction to free use of the lift on the ground that the lift facility will be available only upon getting license from the concerned authorities, causing inconvenience of the old people living on the upper floors. Realizing evil intention of the OPs the complainants sent them a notice on 24-02-2015 through their authorized Advocate, Mr. Saifuddin demanding immediate compliance as per undertaking given by them but the OPs in reply to the said letter undertook to obtain completion certificate from the Competent Authority of the KMC but failed to comply the same. The OPs realized the total amount from the complainants for services in the shape of ‘super built up area’ but measurably failed to provide the said service amounting gross deficiency of service. Since the negligence on the part of the OPs their inaction and non-compliance of the condition, which were part and parcel of the agreement, forced them to take recourse of the DCDRF for obtaining reliefs in terms of their application.

All the OPs in their joint written version contended that the complaint case was not maintainable in law and claimed that the complainants would not be entitled to the reliefs. In the said written version the OPs categorically admitted the factum of Agreement for Sale, execution of the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainants, delivery of possession in their favour and contended that the complainants were happily residing in their respective flats. Denying the cause of action, as averred in the body of the application, these OPs though admitted the factum of disputes between the parties but they ultimately prayed for dismissal of the complaint case with costs.

Ld. DCDRF while disposing of the complaint case being CC/222/2015 disposed it of on contest and directed the OPs to comply with the order passed in the judgment, as quoted in the earlier part of the judgment.

Now the point for consideration is – whether Ld. DCDRF was justified in passing the order.

The factual aspects of the matter are not seriously disputed by the parties. Here the agreement between the parties for purchasing the flat, execution of the deed of conveyance on payment of consideration in favour of the complainants, delivery of possession in favour of the complainants etc. are the admitted facts. The complainants claimed that they were entitled to the building completion certificate from the office of the KMC, to be collected by the OPs, and for handing over the same to the complainants, installation of a lift with permission to install the same from the Competent Authority, to have drainage and other connections from the KMC and open space in front of the flat to be neat and clean so that it can be used by the complainants as a privilege. Parties adduced evidence and put forward questions challenging the veracity of the statements given by the parties in their respective evidence on affidavit. Ld. Counsel for the parties in course of their respective arguments submitted advancing the case of their respective parties wherefrom it can be assessed that the litigation between the parties cropped up as a fashio

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
nable game for them and the parties can resolve their disputes if they want to end their litigation instead of fighting against each other. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainants were entitled to the reliefs, as they claimed in their petition in CC/222/2015. Hence we dispose of the appeal by affirming the judgment and order passed by Ld. DCDRF, save and except the direction with regard to penal damages, to be paid by the OPs herein and we like to impress upon the parties to follow the principle “live and let live”. With these observations the appeal stands disposed of. Parties do bear their respective costs of Appeal.