DATE OF FILING                    :   20-04-2013.

DATE OF S/R                            :   21-05-2013.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :   11-09-2013.

Sri Anjan Ghosh,

son of Sri Ganendu Ranjan Ghosh,

residing at Sukanta Pally, P.O. Halisahar,

P.S. Bizpur, District – North 24 Parganas,

PIN – 743134.------------------------------------------------------------------ COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.      Biswakarma Developer,

having its office at

85/5/1, Madhusudan Pal Chowdhury Lane,

P.O. Kadamtala, P.S. Bantra,

District –Howrah,

PIN  – 711101.

2.      Biswakarma Rajbhar,

The proprietor of Biswakarma Developmer,

son of Sri Lalji Rajbhar,

residing at 85/5/1, Madhusudan Pal Chowdhury Lane,

P.O. Kadamtala, P.S. Bantra,

District – Howrah,

PIN – 711101.

3.      Rajeswar Sahani,

son of late Jhoti Sahani,

residing at 60/4/5, Naskarpara Lane, P.S. Shibpur,

District – Howrah,

PIN – 711103.

4.      Guddu Jaiswal,

Residing at 60/4/5, Naskarpara Lane, P.S. Shibpur,

District – Howrah,

PIN – 711103.

5.      The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India, Kanchrapra Branch,

Kabi Guru Rabindra Path, P.O. Kanchrapara, P.S. Bizpur,

District – 24 Parganas ( North ),

PIN – 743145. -----------------------------------------------------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.p.no. 1  to refund the advance money together with interest and for compensation of Rs. 4 lacs for physical and mental harassment together with litigation costs of Rs. 10,000/- as in spite of receiving Rs. 7,50,000/- from the complainant for offering a flat as per schedule measuring 1200 sq. ft.  did not deliver the same within the stipulated period in spite of repeated requests.

2.                  The o.p. nos. 1 & 2  in the written version contended interalia that the dispute

arose with the O.P. no. 3 over  the property of Biswakarma Developer for the construction work ; that the developer and the landlord, O.P. no. 3 executed power of attorney in favour of O.P. no. 2 on 30-05-2009 ; that the landlord, O.P. no. 3 started disturbing O.P. no. 2 with malafide intention rendering the progress of the construction work at a stalemate ; that the complainant paid Rs. 7,50,000/- ; that the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 are not responsible for  any deficiency in service. So the complaint should be dismissed.

3.                  The O.P. no. 3 in his written version contended interalia that no relief has been

claimed against him. So the complaint should be dismissed.

4.                  In spite of service of notice the O.P. nos. 4 & 5 did not turn up. So the case was

heard ex parte against O.P. nos. 4 & 5.

5.                  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      :

6.                  Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. Admittedly the O.P.

no. 2 received Rs. 7,50,000/- from the complainant which is also reflected from the receipt dated 21-09-2011. The dream of a new flat having been shattered, the complainant is now compelled to pray for refund of the money advanced to the O.P. no. 2. When the receipt of the money is admitted and the complainant is not willing to continue the agreement for the dilly-dallying of the o.ps. themselves, O.Ps. are bound to refund the same as the  dream of the complainant for a new flat has been shattered. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.            

      Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 133 of 2013 ( HDF 133  of 2013 )  be  and the same is decreed  on contest with  costs  against  the O.P.  nos. 1 & 2 and dismissed against O.P. no. 3 without cost and dismissed against O.P nos. 4 & 5 ex parte without cost.  

      The O.P. nos. 1 & 2  be directed to  refund the sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order together with interest @ Rs. 10% p.a. from the date of acceptance till full satisfaction.

      The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 be further directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant for causing mental pain, agony and prolonged harassment and for frustration of her dreams for a flat.

      The complainant is  also entitled to a litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- from the O.P. nos. 1 & 2.

      The complainant is 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.