DATE OF FILING                    :     13-02-2013.

DATE OF S/R                            :      14-03-2013.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     04-04-2014.

1.      Sandhya  Ghosh,

wife of Ambarnath  Ghosh,

residing at 6A,  Tulsi Mitra Garden Lane,

P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah,

PIN – 711102.

2.      Kabita  Ghosh,

wife of Sri Ajoy  Ghosh,

residing at 6A,  Tulsi Mitra Garden Lane, P.S. Shibpur,

District – Howrah,

PIN – 711102.

3.      Sri  Aloke Kumar Dey,

residing at 11/228, Souterganj, P.S.  Goaltuli,

District – Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh,

PIN – 208001 and

presently staying at 6A, Tulsi Mitra Garden Lane,

P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah,

PIN – 711102. -------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANTS.

-          Versus   -

Ambar Chatterjee,

son of Sri Sadananda Chatterjee,

residing at 76/2, Ichapur Road, P.S. Bantra,

District – Howrah,

PIN  – 711101.--------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.

                                                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 complainants U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainants have  prayed for direction upon the o.p. to pay compensation to tune of Rs. 15,75,600/- and litigation costs of  Rs. 10,000/- as the o.p. in violation of the agreement dated 23-11-2009  did not provide 34% of the constructed area.

2.               The o.p. in his  written version contended interalia that the prayer of the complainant is totally misleading and that Howrah Municipal Corporation did not give sanction for construction of any other floor in violating G + 2 storied building. So the case should be dismissed. 

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

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

ii)                  Whether the complainants are  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

4.               Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. Most of the points are admitted. The o.p. categorically stated that within 30 months of the date of sanction of the said building plan the costs of construction work of G+2 storied building was completed. For lack of sanction the upper floor could not be constructed.

5.               It is not a matter of concern of the Forum whether the o.p. could not obtain the sanction plan of the upper floor or what factors resisted the o.p. to deliver the flats as per agreement to fulfill   34% of his share. It is palpable on scrutiny of the records that the complainants have been deprived of their entitlement to 292 sq. ft. and thus incurred losses of Rs. 5,25,660/-. There is no way escape of the o.p. from the rigours of law.  Therefore, this is a fit case where the prayer of the complainants shall allowed. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.   

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 37  of 2013 ( HDF 37  of 2013 )  be and the same is  allowed on contest with  costs  as  against  the O.P. 

      The O.P. be directed to refund Rs. 5,25,660/- being the valuation of 292 sq. ft. falling short of 34% as per stipulations of the agreement within  30 days from the date of this order

      The o.p. be further directed to pay a compensation to the tune of  Rs. 30,000/- to the complainants for causing mental pain and harassment and litigation costs of  Rs. 3,000/-.  

      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  )                                              

  President,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.