Both the complaints i.e. CC Case No. 372/2013 and CC Case No. 226/2014 are analogously tried and heard and disposed of finally.
Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that op nos. 1 to 10 are the owners of premises No. 10D, Seven Tanks Lane, P.S.,Sinthee, Kolkata – 700030 within Ward No. 2 comprising in MouzaSinthee, within the district of North 24 Parganas and they failed to renovate the said dilapidated structure by the owners due to insufficient of fund for which they entered into an agreement with op no.11 M/s. Supriti Enterprise for development of the said land of the premises for commercial exploitation as per terms and conditions of the Joint Venture Agreement dated 15.03.2007. Thereafter op nos. 1 to 10 executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Sri Sujan Kumar Roy Burman, the op no.11 for the purpose of compliance of all formalities before different authorities to comply the said agreement dated 15.03.2007 which was registered in the office of A.D.S.R. Cossipore Dum Dum. Subsequently op no.3 invited different prospective purchasers to book the future constructed flats on the schedule A property and in response to the said invitation, the complainant met with the op no.11 and expressed his willingness to purchase a flat being Flat No. 4B on the South,Eastern portion on the fourth floor having to be constructed on the A Schedule property at a consideration price of Rs. 20 lakhs and made an advance of Rs. 9 lakhs as earnest money towards the said verbal contract.
Thereafter op no.11 executed an agreement for sale dated 05.08.2010 admitting the booking money/earnest money of Rs. 9 lakhs and the said agreement for sale was executed by the op no.11 on 05.08.2010 by putting his signature as the proprietor of his firm Supriti Enterprise and also on behalf of owners of the said A Schedule land as Constituted Attorney. That the agreement dated 05.08.2010, it was contended that the said Flat No. 4B on the Fourth floor measuring 900 sq. ft. super built area as per schedule B would be handed over within 10 months from the date of agreement and that agreement was executed on 05.08.2010.
The complainant subsequently paid a sum of Rs. 3,70,000/, on several dates on assurance that he would be given possession of the flat within the schedule time and the total advance made by the complainant to the op no.11 stood Rs. 1,27,000/,. But inspite of lapse of nearly 3 years from the date of agreement for sale, op no.11 failed and neglected to give any intimation to the complainant regarding the handing over possession of the said flat as per schedule B after accepting the balance amount of consideration price of Rs. 1,00,000/,. On certain apprehension, the complainant made an enquiry of the completion of the said flat and came to know that nearly 95 percent of the flats on the Schedule A property has been completed.
But finding silence of the op no.11, the complainant was compelled to serve a letter dated 30.08.2013 through his Ld. Advocate RajnarayanDatta to all the ops to handover the possession of the flat within fortnight from service of the said letter, failing which the complainant shall have to move against all the above ops in proper Forum of law without any further reference. But inspite of receipts of the said notice by all the ops, none made any response against the said demand notice of the letter dated 30.08.2013.
In the above circumstances, complainant stated that ops are trying to sell out the B Schedule property to some other persons by entering into a fresh agreement without cancelling the existing agreement entered by the op no.11 with the complainant. In the above circumstances, for negligence and deficient manner of service and for adopting unfair trade practice, complainant has filed this complaint for handover the possession and to execute the sale deed and for mental pain and agony etc.
On the other hand ops by filing written statement submitted that complainant is a childhood friend of op no.11 and both are resident of same locality and it was family friendship and complainant requested the op no.2 on several occasion to give him a suitable property so that he could make a profit by re,selling it. Therefore when he entered into this instant Joint Venture Project, he offered the complainant to buy one of the flats in the project and the complainant agreed to op no.11.s proposal and paid him Rs. 12,70,000/, in total in different dates as advance of the said project.
Subsequently complainant informed op no.11 that he was financially inability and thus he demanded his money back and after giving up the idea for purchasing the said flat. Accordingly op no.11 paid a part of money advanced by the complainant back to him and also authorized him to collect the rest of the amount from his well,wishers which the complainant did and received back of total of Rs. 12,05,000/, out of Rs. 12,70,000/, leaving a balance of Rs. 65,000/, which is due and payable to the complainant on account of said flat.
Considering their old friendship and relationship nothing formal was executed in writing and save and except the receipt by the complainant. As regards the balance of Rs. 65,000/, is concerned being annoyed and threatened the op and sent a lawyer.s notice but after discussion agreed to withdraw the same once he received the balance amount and practically complainant has taken back Rs. 12,05,000/, out of Rs. 12,70,000/, advanced by him leaving a balance amount of Rs. 65,000/, but after second thought has filed the complaint before this Forum with a fraudulent motive and fictitious motive. But denied all other allegations as made in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the case.
Subsequently an application was filed by Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury praying for addition of party that they already got possession of the said flat on the basis of agreement on payment of Rs. 19 lakhs out of total Rs. 20 lakhs and thereafter she has got electric connection and applied for electric connection and the authority has issued quotation for the proposed electric connection and that agreement to sale was executed by the ops in favour of that applicant Ashim Roy Chowdhury on 05.10.2010. So they are interested party, but they are not met with the complainant for which they prayed for adding them as op and considering their applications and hearing the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant and after taking objection on behalf of the complainant, they were made parties as op nos. 12 & 13.
Thereafter they filed written statement stating the fact that developer already received and they are in possession and they have made the said flat usable. But in the meantime somehow or otherwise complainant moved to transfer some documents and filed this case. But in fact op nos. 12 & 13, agreement to sale is early within that of the agreement for the sale of the complainant. So, complainant.s case should be dismissed and further submitted that time to time complainant already paid to op nos. 12 & 13 and paid total amount and got possession and prayed for electric connection and he has already discarded the said flat. But in the meantime the flat has been sold by the present Forum and it is specifically mentioned by the op that they are the actual possessors of the flat and for which the present complaint should be dismissed.
Practically this is the case of the complainant, written version of the op nos. 1 to 11 and also the version of the added op nos. 12 & 13 in C.C. Case No. 372/2013. But Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury the op nos. 12 & 13 also filed a case CC No. 226/2014 and in that case they have claimed that they entered into an agreement with the op nos. 1 to 12 the owner and developer and the another op no. 12 Somnath Roy and that Somnath Roy is the complainant in CC Case No. 372/2013 and in CC Case No. 226/2014, complainant claimed that they are in possession of property on payment of total amount to the developer op no.11 and their agreement was dated 05.10.2010 and out of Rs. 20 lakhs, Rs. 19 lakhs had already been paid and possession has been handed over to the complainant and the present complainant requested the op nos. 1 to 11 to execute the sale deed but that was not done for which the present complaint was filed against landowners, developer and Somnath Roy in CC Case No. 372/2013 and in the present complaint (Second case) filed by the present complainant, op no.12 Somnath Roy by filing written statement submitted that the agreement in between the op no.12 and other ops are denying and it is earlier document.
But subsequently when the op no.12 created pressure upon the op nos. 1 to 11 to execute sale deed might be with the connivance with the op nos. 1 to 11, complainant managed to procure such document and further submitted that the entire claim of the present complainant is vexatious and liable to be dismissed.
But other ops did not file any written statement and submitted their evidence in chief in respect of the evidence of the complainant.
Accordingly as per order No.2 dated 06.06.2014 both CC Case No. 372/2013 and CC Case No. 226/2014 are taken up jointly in analogous truck and specifically order was passed in both the cases were held analogously by this Forum accordingly. In view of the above premises we are passing a single judgement after hearing both the cases analogously and by this judgement result of both the cases shall be got and parties shall also be guided analogously.
Decision with reasons
On in depth study of the complaint and written version of both the cases and also hearing the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and particularly the second agreement to sale executed by op nos. 1 to 11 in favour of the complainant of CC Case No. 372/2013 who is Somnath Roy and another in respect of the complainants Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury of CC Case No. 226/2014 it is found thattruth is that development agreement in both the cases amongst the op nos. 1 to 11 was executed on 21.05.2007 with a notarial certificate in respect of the present holding and subsequently in both the cases op nos. 1 to 10 executed General Power of Attorney in favour of Sri Sujay Kr. Roy Burman as their Power of Attorney holder and Attorney to implement the Development Agreement and that Power of Attorney was executed on 15.03.2007.
So, considering those documents, it is clear that op nos. 1 to 10 are the land owners in respect of the entire suit premises and op no. 11 is the developer,cum,Power of Attorney holder on behalf of the op nos. 1 to 10 to do the needful and to execute the agreement of development dated 21.05.2007.
Considering that it is clear that op no.11 was legally authorized to act on behalf of the owners, op nos. 1 to 10 in both the cases and truth is that op no. 11 is the developer and he has his capacity to execute the agreement to sale with intended purchasers.
In CC Case No. 372/2013, complainant has made an agreement to sale dated 05.08.2010 in respect of one flat out of the case premises and schedule of the flat is one self,contained flat being No. 4B on the South,East Portion of the building measuring super built area of 900 sq. ft. and that was executed in favour of Somnath Roy and this deed is disputed deed in respect of CC Case No. 372/2013.
Similarly in Case No. 226/2014 the agreement to sale dated 10.07.2009 was executed by op nos. 1 to 11 in favour of Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury and in the schedule of the said deed of agreement to sale description of the flat is one flat on the South,East Portion on the 4th Floor measuring super built area about 900 sq. ft. etc. But truth is that agreement is of dated 10.07.2009 and that deed has not been challenged by the op nos. 1 to 11.
Considering the two deeds as mentioned above, it is found that agreement for sale was executed by op nos. 1 to 11 of both the cases in favour of Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury of dated 10.07.2009 whereas the agreement to sale in favour of Somnath Roy is dated 05.08.2010. So, after considering both the deeds, it is clear that the agreement for sale dated 10.07.2009 is earlier one which is in favour of Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury in respect of one flat (CC Case No. 226/2014) and agreement for sale in favour of Somnath Roy is of dated 05.08.2010. So, no doubt this agreement for sale is not later one.
In both the cases in respect of agreement to sale Somnath Roy has paid Rs. 12,70,000/, to op no.11 whereas Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury have paid Rs. 19 lakhs out of Rs. 20 lakhs to the op no.11 the developer.
But in the deed of complainant Somnath Roy, flat number is noted as 4B, whereas in the deed of Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury flat number is not mentioned but otherwise details of flat in both the deeds are sameexcept the flat number.
On proper consideration of the materials on record and evidence of both the parties and also considering the order of this Forum it is fact that this Forum in CC Case No. 372.2013 sealed one flat without any number on the South,East portion of the 4th floor of the said building having an area 900 sq. ft. and that is truth.
Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury as complainant of CC Case No. 226/2014 have claimed that they have completed the flat by moderating the same and prayed for electricity connection, after getting possession but only the deed of sale has not been registered by the op nos. 1 to 11. But while they are in possession it was sealed by this Forum now it is under the custody of the concerned police station as per order of this Forum. But the entire incomplete work has been completed by the complainant in CC Case No. 226/2014 and they are in possession and other flat,owners have also confirmed themAshim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury.s possession and truth is that complainant Somnath Roy of CC Case No. 372/2013 have not got any possession on the ground his deed is the subsequent deed of agreement to sale than that of present agreement to sale in CC Case No. 226/2014.
So the Ld. Lawyer of the op nos. 12 & 13 of CC Case No. 226/2014 have claimed that complainant Somnath Roy is not entitled to get the benefit of getting possession or registrering the deed of sale on the basis of their agreement to sale dated 05.08.2010 because complainants.(Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury)of CC Case No. 226/2014 agreement to sale deed is earlier than that of Somnath Roy and Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury deed is of dated 10.07.2009 and prior to filing of the CC Case No. 372/2013by the Somnath Roy, the complainant in CC Case No. 226/2014 got possession and make it habitable after decoration and they have also prayed for electric connection for filing such application and quotation has also been supplied by the electricity authority.
On the other hand the Ld. Lawyer of Somnath Roy, complainant of CC Case No. 372/2013 and op no.12 of CC Case No. 226/2014 has submitted that the agreement to sale in favour of Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury is completely a back dated one and possession had not been delivered because it was sealed by the Forum prior to after filing of the case No. 372/2013 by Somnath Roy the complainant of CC Case No. 226/2014 got possession prior to filing of Case No. 372/2013 and make it habitable after making interior decoration and plaster also and they have prayed for electric connection by filing such application and quotation has also been supplied by the Electricity Authority what is fact.
On the other hand the Ld. Lawyer of Somnath Roy, the complainant of CC No. 372/2013 and op no.12 of CC Case No. 226/2014 has submitted that agreement to sale in favour of Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhuryis completely a back dated one and possession was not delivered because it was sealed by the Forum prior to filing of the case by Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury in CC Case No. 226/2014 and further submitted in the agreement to sale dated 05.08.2010 of Somnath Roy where flat no. is specifically mentioned as 4B on the South,East portion of the building measuring 900 sq. ft. But in the agreement to sale of Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury, no flat number is noted. So there is no ground to disbelieve the story of the present complainant Somnath Roy in case No. 372/2013 but it would be found on proper evaluation of both the agreements to sale, that description of the flat in question properly in detail is written in the agreement to sale dated 05.08.2010 in respect of CC Case No. 372/2013. So, Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury the complainant of CC Case No. 226/2014 cannot claim any valid right to get possession and deed of registration in view of the fact in their agreement to sale dated 10.07.2009, there is no specification of flat number. So, it is proved that document of Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury is purported one.
On proper evaluation of the material documents, we are convinced that in the agreement to sale dated 05.08.2010 specification of flat number is 4B on South,East portion of the building which is noted. But in the earlier deed dated 10.07.2009 (in favour of Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury) no doubt flat number is not noted. But all other description in both the cases are same in respect of the flat.
But truth is that when this Forum passed such order for sealing the said flat on the South,East Portion of the 4th floor only when flat is found there under lock and key and that order was passed on 06.02.2014 and I.C. locked it after removal of the existing lock and at that time in Case No. 372/2013 Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury were not made parties and fact remains after sealing the said flat by this Forum vide order dated 06.02.2014 in case No. 372/2013 that Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury appeared before this Forum and prayed for adding them as parties and they are made parties as op nos. 12 & 13 in CC Case No. 372/2013 and filed their objection and thereafter they filed subsequent CC Case No. 226/2014 claiming their right and claiming for only directing the op nos. 1 to 11 for registering and execution of the deed because they already got possession. Considering the above fact, it is clear that on the 4th floor of the said premises, there is only one flat vacant, no doubt it was under lock and key when as per order of this Forum, I.C.Sinthee sealed it by removing existing lock and it is under the control of this Forum no doubt. But it is to be mentioned in this regard that agreement to sale in favour of Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury (complainant of CC Case 226/2014) is of dated 10.07.2009 whereas Somnath Roy.s agreement to sale is of dated 05.08.2010. So, invariably after considering both the agreement to sale we find that the agreement to sale dated 10.07.2009 in favour of Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury is earlier agreement to sale that of the agreement to sale of Somnath Roy (complaint Case No. 372/2013) dated 05.08.2010. But regarding details we have gathered that on the 4th floor on South,East portion of the building there is one flat and at the time of sealing there was no number and no number is as yet placed. Anyhow in support of the Somnath Roy, no evidence is adduced by Somnath Roy in support of his complaint Case No. 372/2013 or in his defence in CC Case No. 226/2014 by producing such evidence of other flat owners of the premises that said flat was never possessed by Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury and they never got any possession and it was under control of developer.
On the contrary complainant Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury in CC Case No. 226/2014 have produced separate evidence of SasankaSekhar Chakraborty ops who has stated that in the said building there are 14 flat owners and fact remains flat owners got incomplete construction. So, landowners and flat owners completed the said flat with their own cost and Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury got possession of flat on the 4th floor the only flat in the South,East portion as per sanctioned plan and SasankaSekharhas stated flat in dispute is possessed by Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury and that SasankaSekhar Chakraborty is one of the flat owner of the same disputed premises.
Another flat owner Tridib Roy who has stated that he is also the flat owner on 4th floor on the North,East portion having no number and they have seen Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury to complete the said flat and they are in possession and possession was delivered by developer on proper payment. But sale deed has yet not been completed by the op no.11 on the ground op no.11 has not yet received any completion certificate from the Corporation or Municipality. Another fellow Ashim Roy of same premises has confirmed that Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury got the possession from the developer and they have been possessing and they have decorated the said flat internally and completed it but only deed of sale has not been completed by developer.
Another witness Manas Dutta one of the flat owners of the premises has also confirmed the possession of the Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury and he has confirmed the act of developing the room and internal decoration and possession of Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury and they have also confirmed that on South,East corner there is no other flat except the flat in respect of which Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury has got possession. But anyhow there is no evidence in support purchase by Somnath Roy either as complainant in CC Case No. 372/2013 as complainant or as op in CC Case No. 226/2014.
Moreover op nos. 1 to 11 have not denied or challenged the delivery of the possession of the said flat (flat in dispute) in favour of Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury and their act of developing the said room and decorating the said room and possession and for application for getting electricity connection and no doubt quotation has been supplied to Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury. When that is the fact then it can safely be said that 90 percent of the agreement in respect of agreement for sale have been performed by concerned op nos. 1 to 11 in favour of Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury on the basis of agreement to sale dated 10.07.2009 and part performance has been performed by the op nos. 1 to 11 but only the deed of sale has not been executed in favour of all the flat owners on the ground op no.11 has not yet received the completion certificate from the Corporation or Municipalities and in view of the above fact it can safely be said that agreement for sale dated 10.07.2009 is valid one andin view of the above fact that the agreement to sale of Somnath Roy dated 05.08.2010 is later one. So, at best Somnath is entitled to get back the entire amount which has been paid to the op no.11 the developer and fact remains the present Somnath Roy.s agreement to sale cannot be implemented in view of the fact that there is another deed of agreement to sale dated 10.07.2009 in favour of Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury who were in possession and have got possession on payment of Rs. 19 lakhs out of Rs. 20 lakhs.
It is also proved that when the flat was sealed by this Forum Somnath Roy in CC Case No. 372/2013 did not disclose that Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury already got possession for which I.C. Sinthee at that time sealed as per order of this Forum and no doubt possession is within the custody of the present Forum. Most interesting factor is that all other flat owners of the same premises have confirmed the possession ofAshim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury and their act and developing the said room by internal decoration and truth is that 16 persons have been residing their out that 4 or 5 persons confirmed the possession by Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury. Then we are confirmed that said persons Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury cannot be dispossessed by this Forum because this Forum has no authority to dispossess them and when their deed is earlier than that of Somnath Roy of CC Case No. 372/2013.
In the light of the above observation we are convinced to hold that Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury the complainant of CC Case No. 226/2014 are entitled to get such decree in their favour against all the ops in CC Case No. 226/2014 for getting a registered deed of sale along with CC Case No. 372/2013 from op nos. 1 to 11 as they have proved their legal right to implement finally the deed of sale dated 10.07.2009. But anyhow Somnath Roy op no.12 of CC Case No. 226/2014 is not entitled to get possession in the said flat or any other order in the said case.
In view of the above findings at best Somnath Roy is entitled to get back the advance paid amount of Rs. 12,70,000/, from op no.11 the developer who has admitted that he received but op no.11 tried to convince in CC No. 372/2013 that he has paid the amount of Rs. 12,05,000/, but it has not been proved by op no.11 or op nos. 1 to 10 but as because their agreement is all dated 05.08.2010 subsequent to the agreement to sale dated 10.07.2009 (CC Case No. 226/2014) complainant is entitled to get back that deposited amount which has been admitted by the op no.11 that he received it in advance but there is no legal ground to give any effect of the other prayer of Santosh Roy for cancellation of the agreement to sale dated 07.10.2009 in favour of Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury or for handing over possession in favour of Somnath Roy and for directing the op nos. 1 to 11 in both the cases to execute the sale deed in favour of Somnath Roy on the basis of agreement to sale dated 05.08.2010. But invariably in Case No. 372/2013 complainant is entitled to get back the entire amount of Rs. 12,70,000/, from the op no.11 without any doubt when op no.11 (Developer) has failed to prove by any cogent evidence that he refunded the said amount to the complainant Somnath Roy.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
Accordingly the complaint No. 372/2013 succeeds in part against the contesting op no.11 with cost of Rs.10,000/, and same is dismissed on contest against op nos.12& 13 but without any cost. But same is allowed exparte against op nos. 1 to 10 without any cost.
Op no.11 is hereby directed to pay the sum of Rs. 12,70,000/, with interest at the rate8 percent p.a. since the date of receipt of the said amount from the complainant Somnath Roy and same shall be paid to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.
For adopting unfair practice by the op no.11 and also for causing mental pain and agony and financial loss to the complainant and also causing hardship to Somnath Roy, op no.11 shall have to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/, to the complainant in CC Case No. 372/2013 and for non compliance of the order of this Forum a sum of Rs. 5,000/, per month shall have to pay to this Forum by op no.11 as penal damages.
Similarly in CC Case No. 226/2014 final order is passed accordingly. Complainant of CC Case No. 226/2014 is hereby allowed on contest against op no.12 but without any cost and same is allowed exparte against op nos. 1 to 11 with cost of Rs. 10,000/, which shall be paid by the op no.11 only to the complainant. Op nos. 1 to 11 particularly op no.11 is/are hereby directed to execute the sale deed and to register the same in favour of Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury in CC Case No. 226/2014 by handing over a completion certificate of the said construction after collecting it from the concerned Municipality or Corporation to the complainant within two months from the date of this order failing which op no.11 shall have to pay the compensation of Rs. 20,000/, to the complainant Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury ( CC Case No. 226/2014) for causing harassment, mental pain and agony and also for negligent and deficient manner of service and said amount shall be paid to the complainant Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury within two months from the date of this order.
If op nos. 1 to 11 and particularly op no.11 fails to comply the order within the two months in that case complainant Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury shall have their liability to file an execution case for execution and registration of the deed in their favour through this Forum and for which complainant Ashim Roy Chowdhury and Ashima Roy Chowdhury shall have to pay service charges etc. for deputing officers of this Forum for executing the said deed in favour of the complainant on behalf of the op nos. 1 to 11 and if it is executed by this Forum and for non,compliance by op nos. 1 to 11 in that case op no.11 shall have to pay a penal damages of Rs. 25,000/, to this Forum for disobeyance and non,compliance of the Forum.s order in respect of both the cases and said amount shall be deposited to this Forum as per order of this Forum failing which for non,compliance of the entire order of this Forum, penal proceedings u/s 27 of C.P. Act 1986 shall be started against op no.11 till full satisfaction of the decree.
