Purabi Chakraborty,

w/o. Bikas Chakraborty,

of 6/3/2, Harinath Nayaratna Lane, P.S. Sibpur,

District – Howrah.--------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.      Aastha Construction,

having its registered office

at 38, Dharmatola Lane, P.S. Sibpur,

District – Howrah.

2.      Miss Baby Bose,

3.      Miss Minoti Bose,

4.      Miss Tumpa Bose,

5.      Smt. Anuradha Bose ( now Sarkar ),

6.      Smt. Dipannita Bose ( now Sarkar ),

7.      Miss Bachhu Bose,

8.      Arup Bose,

9.      Anup Bose,

all sons and daughters of

late Abani Kumar Bose,

of 38,Dharmatola Lane, P.S . Sibpur,

District -  Howrah,

PIN  – 711102.

10.  Smt. Uma Kundu,

widow of lt. Haradhon Kundu

of 4/1, Circular 4^th Bye Lane, P.S. Sibpur,

District – Howrah,

PIN – 711102. -----------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986

wherein the complainant has   prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to complete the flat as mentioned in the schedule and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 lacs together with litigation costs of Rs. 50,000/- as the O.Ps. in spite of receiving a sum of Rs. 1,94,000/- out of total consideration of Rs 3 lacs did not complete the flat and execute and register the deed of conveyance.  

2.                  The o.p. no. 10 in his  written version denied all the material allegations made

in the complaint and contended interalia that he has been unnecessarily dragged in this complaint. So the case should be dismissed.

3.                  The O.P. nos. 2 to 9, the legal heirs of O.P. no. 1 in their written version

contended interalia that they have no liability as the agreement was executed between O.P. no. 1 Apurba Kr. Bose who might have received the consideration money ; that they did not receive any amount from the complainant. So the case requires to be dismissed.

4.                  Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.                  Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. We have carefully

gone through the necessary documents filed by the complainant.  The agreement dated 16-11-2011 reflects that the agreement with respect to the schedule flat was done between O.P. no. 1, since deceased and the complainant. The money receipts ( 10 numbers ) confirmed that O.P. no. 1 since deceased received a sum of Rs. 1,94,000/- from the complainant as part payment of the total consideration money of Rs. 3 lacs. The letter issued by  Apurba Kumar Bose since deceased further confirms that the possession of the flat measuring 300 sq. ft. was delivered to the complainant as per agreement dated 08-08-2012.  

6.                  The pertinent question arises if the legal heirs namely O.P. nos. 2 to 9 shall be

bound with the agreement done by the predecessor in interest. The answer is in the affirmative as the contract entered into by their predecessors shall have to be honoured by the legal heirs namely O.P. nos. 2 to 9. It is persistent demand of the complainant that the flat in question though delivered to the complainant is in incomplete position. The O.P. nos. 2 to 9 cannot have any escape from rigours of law and the liability. The O.P. no. 10 is the owner of the property and therefore he shall be the confirming party at the time of execution of the deed.  

            We are, therefore, of the view that the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed as there is gross deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.      

      Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 181  of 2012 ( HDF  181 of 2012 )  be  and the same is allowed on contest with  costs  against  all the O.Ps. 

      The O.P. nos. 2 to 9 be  directed to complete the unfinished flat within 60 days from the date of this order after receiving the balance amount of Rs. 1,06,000/- ( Rs. 3,00,000 – Rs. 1,94,000/- ) from the complainant.

      The O.P. nos. 2 to 9 be  further directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant with respect to the schedule flat within the specified time as above where the O.P. no. 10 shall the confirming party.

      The O.P.  nos. 2 to 9 be directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant for causing mental pain and agony within the period as mentioned above.  

      The complainants are at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (    T.K. Bhattacharya  )                                               (    T.K. Bhattacharya  )

  President,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                                   President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.

 (  P. K. Chatterjee )

 Member,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.