LAWS(NCD)-2016-9-53

KAVITA KOTHARI W/O. SHRI RAJIV KOTHARI, METRO HEIGHTS, 114, LAL MOHAN BHATTACHARYA ROAD, KOLKATA Vs. SAMRIDDHI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. 7 3 ORS. OFFICE AT 9/12, AJAD HIND GARH, SULAU MORE, RAJARHAT ROAD, POLICE STATION AIRPORT, DISTRICT

Decided On September 07, 2016
Kavita Kothari W/O. Shri Rajiv Kothari, Metro Heights, 114, Lal Mohan Bhattacharya Road, Kolkata Appellant
V/S
Samriddhi Developers Pvt. Ltd. 7 3 Ors. Office At 9/12, Ajad Hind Garh, Sulau More, Rajarhat Road, Police Station Airport, District Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed under section 19 read with Sec. 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, challenging the impugned order, dated 24.07.2015, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission ) in Miscellaneous Application No. 516/2014 and Miscellaneous Application No. 596/2014, filed in Consumer Complaint No. CC/106/2012, filed by the present appellant before them, vide which, it was held that the complainant was not a consumer and hence, the consumer complaint was dismissed.

(2.) In her Consumer Complaint No. 106/2012, filed before the State Commission, the complainant Kavita Kothari stated that she was one of the purchasers in respect of two flats for personal residence in the building promoted by the OPs. The OPs 2 to 4 were the owners of their respective adjacent plots and they jointly entered into a Development Agreement with the OP-1 builder Samriddhi Developers Pvt. Ltd. for getting a multi-storey building constructed on the said land. The developer was to construct the building as per the plan sanctioned by the local Municipal Committee and by using its own funds. The building was to be completed within a period of three years, which was subsequently enhanced by another year. The building plan was duly sanctioned by the local municipality on 15.06.2006. The OP-1 and OPs 2 to 4, the owners entered into two agreements for sale with the complainant on 20.11.2007, according to which, the super built-up area of about 2500 sq. ft. together with undivided proportionate share of the land and common area and facilities was to be given to her. The possession of both the flats was to be handed over by the OP-1 by 20.05.2009. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs till the date of filing the complaint and the balance payment of Rs. 15 lakhs was to be made at the time of registration of the conveyance deed. The complainant alleged that even after expiry of 7 years from the date of receipt of the sanctioned plan, only the structure and the brick work was completed and the finishing work was yet to be done. Subsequently, OPs 2 to 4 had sold their land in favour of the OP-1. The complainant issued a legal notice to the OP-1 on 28.07.2011, demanding delivery of the flats. The OP-1 denied that any agreement had been entered with the complainant. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OPs to pay Rs. 25 lakhs on account of compensation for mental agony, Rs. 10.76 lakhs on account of accrued compensation for occupational charges, a sum of Rs. 5,30,630.00 on account of accrued interest on the investment made and Rs. 1,000.00 per day from the date of filing of the complaint, till the delivery of possession.

(3.) During proceedings before the State Commission, two Miscellaneous Applications were filed before them - M.A. No. 516/2014 was filed by the OPs, challenging the maintainability of the complaint, while M.A. No. 596/2014 was filed by the complainant, seeking attachment of property of OP-1 for violation of order of injunction dated 09.09.2013.