DATE OF FILING                    :     15-07-2013.

DATE OF S/R                            :      13-08-2013.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     12-09-2013.

Sri Sibsankar Chakraborty,

son of late Batokrishna  Chakraborty,

residing at 78/2/3, Kazi Bagan Lane, Thakur Ramkrishna Lane,

P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah,

and at present residing at

62/11/1, Ichapur Road, P.S. Bantra,

District – Howrah, and permanently at

Anantapur Samanta, Madhyamirpara, Anantapur,

Shyampur, Howrah – 711301. ----------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

K.C. Panja & Son,

proprietorship concern represented by

sole proprietor Sri Susanta Panja,

son of  Ichapur Canel Side ( Purbapara ),P.O. Santragachi,

P.S. Jagacha, District – Howrah,

PIN - 711104.------------------------------------------------------------------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 complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has  prayed for direction upon the o.p. to execute and register proper sale in his favour with respect to the schedule mentioned flat vide agreement dated 01-05-2009 and to pay compensation of Rs. 1 lakh   together with litigation costs of Rs. 50,000/- as in spite of receiving Rs. 7,70,000/- out of the total agreed amount of Rs. 8,05.000/- did not execute and register  the sale deed.   

2.               The o.p. in his  written version contended interalia that the measurement of the flat now comes to 809 sq. ft. instead of 750 sq. ft. which was agreed upon; that the complainant does not pay the excess amount and as such 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 complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

4.            Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. Admittedly the o.p. received Rs. 7,70,000/- from the complainant and only Rs. 35,000/- is due. On scrutiny of the agreement, it is clear that the agreement dated 01-5-2009 stipulates the area as 750 sq. ft. and not 809 sq. ft. We are concerned over the 750 sq. ft. as recorded in the agreement. We have no  hesitation in our mind that the o.p. only to fleece extra amount from the complainant has raised a bizarre issue which cannot be supported from the point of  view of law.

           In the result, we are of the view that this is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed. Both the points are accordingly disposed of. 

Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 232 of 2013 ( HDF 232 of 2012 )  be  allowed on contest with  costs  against  the O.P. 

      The O.P. be directed to execute and register proper deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant with respect to the schedule mentioned flat measuring 750 sq. ft. within 30 days from the date of this order after receiving the balance amount of Rs. 35,000/-.   

      The o.p. do also pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant for causing mental pain, agony and prolonged harassment together with litigation costs of Rs. 5,000/- within one month from the date of this order.  

      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.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (    T.K. Bhattacharya  )                                              

  President,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.