M/S. STAR CONSTRUCTION Vs. ARUN KUMAR KUNDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, "the State Commission") dated 14.2.2013 vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioners/opposite parties against the order of the District Forum was dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the complainant being the owner of a piece of land situated at Holding No.43/C, Dr. J.R. Dhar Road within the municipal limits of Dum Dum, Kolkata, entered into a development agreement with the opposite parties/petitioners on 29.5.2014. As per the agreement, the petitioners/opposite party was to construct multi-storey building on the aforesaid land of which certain portion was to be delivered to the complainant on completion of the construction. The aforesaid development agreement was modified by a supplementary agreement dated 20.4.2008 whereby the owner's allocation of the building was agreed to be increased as per the details given in Schedule-B to the supplementary agreement. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite parties after completing the construction of the building have failed to deliver the possession of the owner's allocation portion of the building to the complainant.

(3.) The petitioners/opposite parties on being served with the notice of the complaint filed written statement denying the allegations made in the complaint. It was pleaded that as per the supplementary agreement the complainant was supposed to pay a further sum of Rs.1,56,000/- on account of extra area allotted to the complainant. On completion of building intimation was given to the complainant to take possession of his portion of the building on payment of Rs.1,56,000/-. The complainant, however, failed to make the balance payment. Consequently, the opposite party did not deliver the possession of the owner's allocation of the project to the complainant. The petitioners/opposite parties also pleaded that the complainant, however, forcibly taken possession of owner's allocation of the building without the consent of the petitioners.