AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Deepa Sharma, J
The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 06.03.2019 of West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ( in short, the State Commission) passed in Appeal No. A/661/2016 of the petitioners. The petitioners had filed an appeal against the order of the District Forum dated 10.06.2016 in CC No. 55 of 2016 whereby the complaint of the respondents was allowed and following directions were issued :
"Ordered that the complaint be and same is allowed against the O.P.s.
The O.P.s are directed to hand over the peaceful vacant possession according to the terms of the agreement to the complainants within one month from the date of this order.
The O.P.s are also directed to finish the incomplete work of the said flats of the complainants within one month from the date of this order.
The O.P.s are further directed to hand over the C.C. immediately to the complainants. The O.P.s are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost to the complainants within one month from the date of this order, failing which O.P.s shall have to pay sum of Rs.100/- per day from the date of this order till its realization as punitive damages, which shall be deposited by the O.P.s in this State Consumer Welfare Fund."
The appeal against the order of the District Forum was dismissed. The State Commission has held as under:
"Now the point for consideration is - whether Ld. Trial Forum was justified in passing such direction upon allowing the petition of complaint, filed on behalf of the complainants.
Admittedly the parties to this proceedings being the complainants and the OPs entered into an agreement where the OPs agreed to construct a multistoried building ( G +2 ) on the plot in question and as per said Development Agreement the complainants being the owners of the plot of land were entitled to the owner's allocation, as noted in page '8' which are quoted below:
"OWNER'S ALLOCATION : shall mean the land Owners will get Second Floor ( except common stair) of the said multistoried building available for independent use and occupation by the owners after making due provisions for common facilities and the space required thereof and after providing the Developer's allocation".
The terms of agreement between the parties clearly manifested that the construction would be completed within a period of 24 months from the date of sanctioned plan save and except but the work prevented by any force / natural calamity/unwanted litigation. The complainants alleged that the Developers / OPs did not provide the owner's allocation as per terms of agreement including the completion certificate, to be issued in favour of the complainants. Ld. Counsel for the appellants in course of argument drew our attention to the concluding part of the judgment and pointed out that his clients were ready and willing to hand over peaceful and vacant possession according to the terms of agreement between the parties upon completion of the pending works of the said flats within a stipulated period. He also submitted that his clients are ready and willing to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- ( rupees ten thousand) and litigation cost of another Rs.10,000/- ( rupees ten thousand ) to the complainants within the time frame but raised objection with regard to direction of the DCDRF regarding hand over the completion certificate. He submitted that his client could not collect the said certificate from the Competent Authority due to the fact that the building has not been completed as yet. To clarify the situation his Ld. Counterparty explained that the situation worsened as the OPs/ Developers constructed the building violating the terms of the sanctioned plan and raised the third floor ( G + 3) for which he could not collect the completion certificate from the Appropriate authority. Ld. Counsel for the OPs / appellants could not deny the factum of such violation and in the premises the only alternative is left before the OPs to demolish the unauthorised construction in the building. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of firm opinion that Ld. DCDRF did not commit any mistake in the judgment and order impugned. Hence we dismiss the appeal. The order passed by Ld. DCDRF stands affirmed. However, we set aside the order with regard to payment of punitive damages i.e. to pay a sum of Rs.100/- per day, since it was not prayed for by the complainants."
Petitioners are aggrieved of the directions of the District Forum whereby it is directed to hand over the CC (Completion Certificate) immediately to the complainants / respondents. It is submitted that completion certificate is not being given by the authorities and for that the petitioners are required to submit a plan for sanction of the third floor of the building and for which the complainants are not cooperating and signing the requisite documents. It is submitted that since the complainants are not cooperating, the completion certificate cannot be issued and those directions cannot be complied with. It is also prayed that respondents be directed to cooperate and sign the requisite documents for the sanction of the plan for third floor.
I have heard the arguments and perused the relevant record. The concurrent findings of the facts are that parties had entered into an agreement. The petitioners had agreed to develop the property by constructing the building over it and a development agreement was entered into between the parties on 21.06.2013. Pursuant to this agreement, the petitioners submitted building plan for its sanction which the competent authorities duly sanctioned. After signing of the building plan, the complainants executed and registered General Power of Attorney in favour of petitioners. The petitioners, thereafter, started raising the construction. The complainant, however, noticed that the petitioners were constructing the building in violation of the development agreement and that of sanctioned plan. On the objections of the complainants against such type of activities of the petitioners, the petitioners used to convince them that they are raising construction according to the sanctioned plan and development agreement. The possession in terms of the development agreement was not handed over to the complainants and on demand, the petitioners failed to hand over the possession. The concurrent findings of the Fora below also shows that under the terms of agreement, the entire second floor was to be handed over to the complainants but the petitioners had raised construction of the second floor in violation of the building plan and development agreement. During the course of arguments also, it is not disputed by the petitioners that the construction had been raised on the second floor of the building which was beyond the sanctioned plan which was originally sanctioned and pursuant to which Power of Attorney was issued by the complainants. The concurrent findings, therefore, is that the petitioners have not only violated the development agreement but has also raised construction beyond the sanction plan. Deficiency on their part is writ large.
I, therefore, found no reasons to intervene with the impugned order. No illegality or infirmity has been pointed out in the impugned order. Revision Petition has no merit and same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.