AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
IA No. 5221 of 2016
Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties.
The delay of 153 days in filing Revision Petition No. 1754 of 2016 is condoned, as the explanation furnished in the Application, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay, is sufficient.
The Application stands disposed of.
Revision Petitions
We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders dated 01.10.2015 and 14.10.2015, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. By the impugned orders, we find that two Appeals were filed before the State Commission. While First Appeal No. 506 of 2014 was filed by the Purchasers, First Appeal No. 495 of 2014 was filed by the present Petitioner, i.e. the Builder. First Appeal No. 495 of 2014 has been dismissed by the State Commission for non-prosecution as on 01.10.2015 when the Appeal was taken up for hearing, nobody appeared on behalf of the Petitioner herein. So far as First Appeal No. 506 of 2014 is concerned, that was decided on merits. The said Appeal was allowed ex-parte without any order as to costs and the order passed by the District Forum was modified to the extent that the Petitioner herein was directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of car parking space described in 'B' Schedule to the Consumer Complaint in favour of the Complainants within one month.
Rest of the order of the District Forum was maintained. We may mention here that the District Forum while deciding the Complaint had directed the present Petitioner to handover a car parking space as per the agreement of sale within one month from the date of the order as also pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for adopting unfair trade practice and Rs.10,000/- as costs. The net result of the order passed by the State Commission is that apart from handing over the car parking space and Rs.1,10,000/- towards compensation and costs, the Petitioner was also directed to execute the conveyance deed of the car parking space within a time bound period.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner had already provided the car parking space to the Complainants and the Complainants are also parking the car at that place. However, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Complainants strongly denied the plea that the Complainants are parking the car at that place. According to him, the car parking space provided by the Petitioner is not as per the sanctioned plan but on some common area, which cannot be used as a car parking space.
Be that as it may, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner will get the sanctioned plan modified if some reasonable time is given. He prays for six months' time for the same.
The Petitioner is granted six months' time to get the sanctioned plan modified and making the car parking space, which it wants to provide as per the sanctioned plan.
So far as the execution of the conveyance deed is concerned, we find that in the agreement dated 05.01.2010, entered into between the Petitioner and the Complainants, a specific mention has been made in Clause-3 that the total sale consideration of the flat at the third floor of the building, morefully described in the Schedule-B property is Rs.10,00,000/-, to be paid by the Complainants as per the Schedule mentioned therein. So far as Schedule-B is concerned, it has been mentioned that it includes the residential flat on the third floor, along with a car parking space amongst other things. From a reading of the agreement, it is clear that the conveyance deed of the car parking area is also to be executed in favour of the Complainants and, therefore, the order passed by the State Commission, directing for execution of the conveyance deed in respect of the car parking, is justified.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that the amount of compensation and costs should be deleted.
Taking into consideration the fact that the car parking space provided by the Petitioner is not as per the sanctioned plan, we are of the considered opinion that the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief on this score. The amount of Rs.1,10,000/-, which has been awarded by the District Forum and confirmed by the State Commission, does not call for any interference. The said amount be paid within thirty days from today.
The deed of conveyance of the car parking be executed and the Completion Certificate (CC) be provided to the Complainants, after the sanctioned plan is modified within one month thereafter.
Both the Appeals stand disposed of in the above terms.