DATE OF FILING                    :     04.11.2016.

DATE OF S/R                            :      06.12.2016.

DATE OF  ORDER                  :      18.04.2017.

1.         Sri Ram Ayodhya Pandey,

son of late Raj Narayan Pandey,

2.         Smt. Hemanti @ Hewanti Pandey,

w/o. Sri Ram Ayodhya Pandey,

both of 11, Uma Charan Bose Lane,

P.S. Shibpur, District Howrah,

PIN 711102.  …….………………………….……..…… COMPLAINANTS.

• Versus   -

1. M/S. Balaji Construction,

Represented by its proprietor

Sri Sudhir Chowdhury,

Son of late late SubhasChowdhury

Of 21/1, Narasingha Bose Road, P.S. Shibpur,

District Howrah,

PIN 711101

and also residing at 35/2A, Charu Chandra Sinha Lane,

District Howrah,

PIN 711101.

2. Smt. Chonia Devi,

w/o. late Shyamlal Mala.

3. i)    Smt. Mana Devi,

w/o. late Shyamlal Mala,

2. Smt. Bharti Mala,

3. Smt. Arati Mala,

both d/o. late Shewdhari Mala,

4. i)     Smt. Kalawati Devi,

w/o. late Omprakash Mala,

2.   Sri Ajay Mala,

3.  Sri Moogli Mala,

both son of late Omprakash Mala,

4.   Smt. Sony Mala,
5.   Smt. Puja Mala,

d/o. late Omprakash Mala.

5. Sri Raj Mukar Mala,

6. Sri Bijoy Kumar Mala,

7. Sri Munna Mala,

8. Sri Birju Mala,

o.p. nos. 5 to 8 are all sons of late Shewdhari Mala,

11, Uma Charan Bose Lane, P.S. Shibpur,

District Howrah,

PIN 711102. ……..…………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.

P    R    E     S    E    N     T

Hon’ble President  :   Shri  B. D.  Nanda,  M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.

Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.

F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1. This is an application U/S 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioners, Sri Ram Ayodhya Pandey and Smt. Hemanati @ Hewanti Pandey, against the o.ps., M/s. Balaji Construction and seven others, praying for a  direction upon the o.ps. to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the petitioners by completing the construction work and to handover the rest 51 sq. ft. area of the flat in favour of the petitioners or to refund valuation of the 51 sq. ft. amounting to Rs. 36,771/- with interest and to pay Rs. 4 lakhs as compensation and Rs. 50,000/- as litigation costs.      

2. The case of the petitioners is that they entered into an agreement for sale with the o.p. no. 1 on 15.3.2007 in respect of second floor flat measuring 500 sq. ft. + 15% super built up area in the 2^nd floor of the newly constructed building situated at 11, Uma Charan Bose Lane, P.S. Shibpur, Howrah, at a total consideration of Rs. 3,60,500/-. The o.p. nos. 2 to 8 are the landlords who appointed o.p. no. 1 as  developer / promoter to develop the property.

3. The petitioners have already paid Rs. 4,40,000/- instead of Rs. 3,60,000/- and the o.ps. thus received extra amount of Rs. 80,000/-. The possession of the flat was handed over to the petitioners measuring about 449 sq. ft. instead of 500 sq. ft. on 15.6.2012 in an incomplete condition. The petitioners came to know that the case mentioned flat is not within the sanctioned plan area as per HMC sanction plan. On 05.10.2016 the petitioners sent a letter through their advocates asking the o.ps. to execute and register the sale deed but the ignored.  The act of the o.ps. amounts to deficiency in service and unfair  trade practice and having no other alternative the petitioners filed this case.   

4. The o.p. nos. 2, 3, 4 & 6 appeared and others did not appear and nobody filed any written version and thus the case is heard ex parte against the o.ps.
5. The only point to be decided here is whether the petitioners  are entitled to the reliefs as prayed for ?

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

6. In support of their case the petitioners filed the agreement for sale of flat dated 15.3.2007 and also the money receipt showing payment of Rs. 4,40,000/- even though it is noticed from the agreement for sale that the total consideration was fixed Rs. 3,60,500/- for the 500 sq. ft. area of the flat in the second floor + 15% super built up are.

As the possession of the flat was delivered to the petitioners so this case does not suffer on the point of limitation but the money receipts proved the fact that the o.p. no. 1 received a sum of Rs. 80,000/- extra from the petitioner who are in possession of the property and such possession is proved from the electric bill of CESCinthe name of the petitioner no. 1. The above oral and documentary evidenceswent unchallenged and there is nothing to disbelieve the case of the petitioners who are entitled to the relief as prayed for and thus the petitioners have succeeded in proving the case ex parte.

In the result, the application succeeds.  

            Court fee paid is correct.

      Hence,                             

O     R     D      E      R      E        D   

      That the C. C. Case No. 351  of 2016 ( HDF 351 of 2016 )  be  and the same is allowed ex parte with costs against the o.ps., who are directed to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the petitioners after  completing the construction work and handing over the copy of sanction plan of HMC and also o.p. no. 1 is to pay Rs. 36,771/- being the consideration money of 51 sq. ft. which was not handed over to the petitioners.   

      The o.p.  no. 1 is also to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the petitioners for the mental agony and harassment suffered by them for so many years and also to pay Rs. 50,000/- out of which  Rs. 10,000/- would pay to the petitioners as litigation costs and the rest Rs. 40,000/-  would be deposited in the  Consumer Legal Aid Account of this District  Forum.

      All the above payments will be made within 30 days from the date of this order failing the petitioners would be at liberty to put the order in execution.

       Supply the copies of the order to the petitioners, free of costs.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (    B. D.  Nanda   )                                              

  President,  C.D.R.F., Howrah.