J ROY CHOWDHURY Vs. SAHIL CONSTRUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant complaint has been filed under Sec.17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') averring therein that the complainant Shri J. Roy Chowdhury had entered into a Collaboration Agreement dated 26.2.1996 with the opposite party. In terms of the said agreement, the O. P. had to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.18.50 lacs. However, out of the said amount, Rs.6 lacs still remains to be paid by the O. P. and despite repeated reminders, the O. P. has failed to do the needful. Not only that but the O. P. has also failed to provide the facilities and carry out the obligations in terms of the Collaboration Agreement dated 26.2.1996. The O. P. was required to get the water connection sanctioned, as well as, to instal pumps to extract ground water which obligation he has failed to carry out till date. The O. P. was also required to instal two electric meters separately for the two floors belonging to the complainant but instead of installing two separate meters, the O. P. has provided only one meter. The O. P. has also failed to execute the sale deed in respect of the sale of the basement and the first floor and has also not got the same registered as per requirement, nor have the names of the purchasers of the basement and first floor been mutated in the name of the purchasers in the records of the Landdo. Further more, only 3 wardrobes have been provided in the premises of the complainant instead of 4 wardrobes as stipulated in the agreement nor has the O. P. completed the fittings in the second floor despite repeated requests and reminders. As such the complainant has filed the present complaint praying for directions to the O. P. to pay to the complainant, the balance amount of Rs.6 lacs together with interest @ 24% p. a. , as well as, complete the jobs still remaining undone/incomplete, as well as, comply with the other obligations on his part in terms of the collaboration agreement as enumerated in his complaint.

(2.) The O. P. was duly served and the Counsel for the O. P. , Mr. Deepak Arora appeared before this Commission on 3.10.2000. On the said date, the Counsel for the O. P. was afforded an opportunity of four weeks for filing reply/written version on behalf of the O. P. However, thereafter, despite various opportunities given, neither anyone cared to appear on behalf of O. P. nor the O. P. cared to file any reply/written version and as such he was proceeded ex parte vide order/proceedings dated 10.12.2001.

(3.) In support of his case the complainant has filed his own affidavit by way of evidence along with the relevant documents.