No. 6/01.09.2009.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

Appellant through Mr. Rafiqul Islam, the Ld. Advocate and Respondent in person are present.  Heard the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant as also Respondent appearing in person.  The grievance of the Appellant against the impugned judgement is that the Appellant executed the correction in the Deed of Conveyance even before complaint was filed and, therefore, he challenged the imposition of compensation against him.

On behalf of the Complainant – Respondent contention has been made that such Deed was never being supplied to him and, therefore, the Complainant was compelled to initiate the litigation and during pendency of the litigation the Deed was made available to him.  In the circumstances it is argued he became entitled to compensation.  The further contention has been made by the Complainant – Respondent that he made a prayer for a particular nature of lift which is different from the one installed in the premises.

Upon considering the above contention we find that as regards correction of Deed of Conveyance the contention of the Respondent is correct and the Deed was made available to the Complainant only after the proceeding was initiated.  The Ld. Advocate for the Appellant is unable to show us any material in support of his contention that the Deed was made available to the Complainant before the initiation of the proceeding before the Forum below.  Therefore, we do not find any ground for interference with the findings of the Forum below as regards imposition of compensation.

With regard to the claim of the Respondent as regards lift, we find that the Complainant has not preferred any appeal against the impugned judgement.  Moreover, the complaint as filed does not contain any prayer as regards the lift though in the body of the complaint some grievance has been stated and the total quantum of compensation claim included amount regarding lift.  It also appears subsequent to filing of the complaint a verified petition was filed making several prayers but it does not appear that the same form a part of the complaint.  As the claim before the Forum did not include the prayer regarding lift and the Complainant did not prefer any appeal against the impugned judgement, no further relief can be granted to the Complainant particularly in absence of any material justifying such interference.

In above view of findings the appeal is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.