Rathindra Chakrabarty had purchased a plot of land from Dinesh Sikdar. He also entered into an agreement with Sikdar on March 25, 2012, for construction of a two storied building on this plot. The agreement was titled as “Contract Paper” and it was executed on Sikdar’s letterhead.
When possession was given, Chakrabaty found that there was no sanctioned plans, and poor quality construction had been carried out without approval from the municipal corporation. So he filed a complaint before the District Commission for a direction to the developer to obtain the necessary permissions, and then reconstruct the building after demolishing the existing sub standard structure.
The complaint was dismissed on the ground that Chakrabarty had not produced proper receipts for the payment and also because the Barasat Municipality was not impleaded as a party to the dispute. Chakrabarty’s appeal to the West Bengal State Commission was dismissed on the ground that it was his responsibility to obtain the relevant permissions. for which the builder could not be held liable. Also, no order could be passed against the Municipality which was not a party to the dispute. Chakrabarty then went in revision. The National Commission observed that generally a revision cannot be filed when there is concurrent finding on facts by the District and State Commission. However, in this case a material irregularity had been committed by the lower tribunals and their orders were arbitrary and perverse as they had failed to adjudicate the issue of deficiency in service arising out of breach of the undisputed terms of the contract letter.
The National Commission noted that the building plan had not been sanctioned by the competent authority, so the construct was illegal. The contract provided that the developer would have to obtain the approvals, and the failure to do so constituted a deficiency in service. Accordingly, by its order of November 22, 2024, delivered by Subhash Chandra presiding over the the Bench along with J. Rajendra, the National Commission allowed the complaint. It directed the developers to get the plans approved and to rectify the construction either by demolishing it partially or completely and rebuilding it under the supervision of a local engineer to be appointed by the District Commission whose fees would have to be borne by the developer.
When possession was given, Chakrabaty found that there was no sanctioned plans, and poor quality construction had been carried out without approval from the municipal corporation. So he filed a complaint before the District Commission for a direction to the developer to obtain the necessary permissions, and then reconstruct the building after demolishing the existing sub standard structure.
The complaint was dismissed on the ground that Chakrabarty had not produced proper receipts for the payment and also because the Barasat Municipality was not impleaded as a party to the dispute. Chakrabarty’s appeal to the West Bengal State Commission was dismissed on the ground that it was his responsibility to obtain the relevant permissions. for which the builder could not be held liable. Also, no order could be passed against the Municipality which was not a party to the dispute. Chakrabarty then went in revision. The National Commission observed that generally a revision cannot be filed when there is concurrent finding on facts by the District and State Commission. However, in this case a material irregularity had been committed by the lower tribunals and their orders were arbitrary and perverse as they had failed to adjudicate the issue of deficiency in service arising out of breach of the undisputed terms of the contract letter.
The National Commission noted that the building plan had not been sanctioned by the competent authority, so the construct was illegal. The contract provided that the developer would have to obtain the approvals, and the failure to do so constituted a deficiency in service. Accordingly, by its order of November 22, 2024, delivered by Subhash Chandra presiding over the the Bench along with J. Rajendra, the National Commission allowed the complaint. It directed the developers to get the plans approved and to rectify the construction either by demolishing it partially or completely and rebuilding it under the supervision of a local engineer to be appointed by the District Commission whose fees would have to be borne by the developer.
