DATE OF FILING                    :     08-08-2013.

DATE OF S/R                            :      11-09-2013.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     04-08-2014.

Sanjay Satnalika,

son of  late Hari Prasad Satnalika,

carrying on business under the name and

style as Padmanava Prop. & Marchandise (P) Ltd.

situated at 1, British Indian Street, Room No. 608,

Kolkata – 700069.--------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

Kolkata West International City Private Ltd.,

having its registered office

at Vichitra, Kolkata West International City, Salap Junction,

Howrah Amta  Road and Bombay Road Crossing, NH – 6,

Howrah – 711403.-------------------------------------------------------------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 the deed of conveyance in respect of the suit shop room and to pay compensation to tune  of Rs. 70,000/- together with litigation costs of Rs. 5,000/- as the o.p. in spite of receiving the full consideration money did not deliver possession of the suit shop room nor did execute the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant.   

2.               The o.p. in the written version contended interalia that the complainant was allotted the shop room vide allotment letter dated 01-01-2010; that the complainant refused to pay the money for the extra area of the shop room. So the complaint 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 complainant made complete payment to the o.p. for the shop room in question on different dates since the date of agreement. Admittedly, the shop room was booked after inspection of the complete area. Now the o.p. declines to execute the deed on the plea of extra area showing some clauses in the agreement and demands extra amount as pre- condition of the execution of the deed. This is altogether preposterous claim inasmuch as the complainant booked the shop room after inspection of the complete room. If the room was complete how the question of extra area arises. This is just an attempt to squeeze extra money from the complainant though he has paid the consideration money in full. We have no hesitation in our mind after going through the enclosures that the o.p. is guilty of gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. We are, therefore 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. 275 of 2013 ( HDF 275  of 2013 )  be and the same is allowed on contest as against the o.p. with costs.  

      The O.P. be directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance with respect to the suit shop room in favour of the  complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.

      The o.p. do also pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/-  to the complainant as compensation for causing mental pain and prolonged harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs.

      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.