Sugato Kumar Mukhopadhyay,

son of late Mrinal Kanti Mukhopadhyay,

residing at 140/4A/A, N.S.C. Bose Road,

Kolkata – 700 040 and also having address

at  2/6, Bhattacharjee Para Lane, 1st floor/Unit no. 103,

P.S. Shibpur,

District – Howrah.----------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.         M/s. Creative,

 a partnership firm, having its registered office

at 49, Kaliprasad Banerjee Lane, P.S. Bantra,

District – Howrah,

PIN - 711 101.

2.         Shri Jyotirmoy Roy,

son of Shri Ajit Kumar Roy,

partner of M/S. Creative,

having its office at 49, Kaliprasad Banerjee Lane,

P.S. Bantra, District – Howrah,

PIN -711 101,

residing at premises no. 25/1, Chatterjee Para Lane,

P.S. Bantra,

District – Howrah.

3.         Shri  Subrata Karar,

son of late Gopinath  Karar,

a partner of M/s. Creative 49, Kaliprasad Banerjee Lane,

P.S. Bantra, District – Howrah.

4.         Sri Abhik Bhattacharjee,

son of late Arun Kr. Bhattacharjee,

residing at 4/2/1/1/, Bhattacharjee Para Lane,

P.S. Santragachi, P.S. Shibpur,

District – Howrah.

5.         Smt. Sumitra Bhattacharya,

wife of late Arun kr. Bhattacharya,

residing 4/2/1/1/, Bhattacharjee Para Lane,

P.S. Santragachi, P.S. Shibpur,

District – Howrah.

6.         Smt. Anamika Das ( Bhattacharya ),

d/o. late Arun kr. Bhattacharya,

residing 4/2/1/1/, Bhattacharjee Para Lane,

P.S. Santragachi, P.S. Shibpur,

District – Howrah.

----------------------------------------------------------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.ps. to execute and register the deed of conveyance with respect to the flat on the 1st floor, measuring 725 sq. ft. at premises no. 2/6, Bhattacharjee Para Lane, Santragachi, P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah, together with compensation and litigation costs as the O.Ps. in spite of repeated requests refused to execute the deed in question.

2.                  The o.ps. in the written version challenged the maintainability of the complaint

as it is hopelessly barred by limitation;  that they were never approached by the complainant for execution of the deed of conveyance. So they have no liability for any deficiency in service.

3.         Upon pleadings of both parties three  points arose for determination :

i)         Whether the complaint is maintainable ?

ii)         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      :

Point No. 1  :

4.      The case cannot be barred by limitation as the complainant is on continual

possession of the flat in dispute since after the delivery of possession. Likewise, the case is quite maintainable in view of Section 3 of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein it has been laid down that the provision of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derrogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The argument put forward on behalf of the O.Ps. that the Promoters Act shall prevail cannot hold ground as in identical cases Hon’ble National Commission never opined in favour of the prevelence of the Promoters Act. This is because Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a beneficial legislation wherein tendency to adopt unfair trade practice has been discarded and deficiency in service if detected shall be treated harshly.

 Point Nos. 2 & 3  :

5.       Both the points are  taken up together for consideration.Admittedly the

complainant is in possession of the flat in question. The Annexure B dated 29-05-2004 reflects that the O.P. no. 1 delivered possession of the same flat to the complainant. He is in continual possession of flat; entire consideration money has been paid, naturally there cannot be any bar in executing the deed of conveyance. Therefore, we are of the clear opinion that this is a fit case for granting relief to the complainant as prayed for. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.        

      Hence

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 135 of 2012 ( HDF 135 of 2012 )  be  and the same is allowed on contest with  costs  against  the O.Ps. 

      The O.Ps. be directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the flat in question within 30 days from the date of this order

      The complainant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh for mental pain, agony and prolonged harassment from the O.Ps. The O.Ps.  do pay the same to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.

      The complainant is also entitled to a litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/- from the O.Ps.

      The complainants are 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.