FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

Presented by:-

Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay    President.

Brief fact of this case:-This case has been filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act   1986 by the complainant stating that the OP has constructed one apartment namely Gulmohar Apartment   at 20   B.G.G. Sarani upon Bastu Land measuring 3 Cottah 8 Chittaks 18 sq. ft. and the above described Bastu Land measuring 3 cottah 8 chittaks 18 sq.ft. originally belonged to one Parbati Banik    w/o Sri Benimadhab Banik   who obtained the same by dint of a partition Deed being no.5730 for the year 1967.  Said Parbati Banik during her lifetime mutated her name before the concerned authorities and exercised her absolute right   title   interest and possession over the same by paying relevant taxes and rent in her name and said Parbati Banik died intestate on 17.04.1992 leaving behind her husband Sri Benimadhab Banik   three sons namely Sri Lakhsmi Narayan Banik   Sri Ganesh Banik (since deceased) and Sri Mithu Banik and three daughters namely Sova Banik   Mamata Banik (Since deceased) and Krishna Banik (Since deceased)  and subsequently Benimadhab Banik died intestate leaving behind the aforesaid sons and daughters as legal heirs of himself and Parbati Banik.  Thus   the aforesaid sons and daughters acquired undivided 1/6^th share each in the said Bastu property measuring 3 Cottah 8 chittaks18 sq.ft. according to Hindu Succession Act 1956.  Thereafter the aforesaid sons and daughters of Parbati Banik and Benimadhab Banik exercised their right   title   interest and possession over the said Bastu Property according to the shares respectively and during such ownership and possession the aforesaid Krishna Banik died leaving behind her son Sri Soumyajit Banik i.e.   the complainant herein   as his only legal heir and it mentioned in this context that at the time of death of Krishna Banik said Soumyajit Banik was a minor and all his interests were looked after by his next friend and natural guardian i.e.   his father.  Subsequently said Mamata Banik died leaving behind her husband Sri Pradip Banik and one daughter namely Mohana Banik   as her only legal heirs.

Some of the aforesaid legal heirs of Parbati Banik namely Lakshmi Narayan Banik   Ganesh Banik   Mithu Banik   Sova Banik and Mamata Banik executed a power of Attorney in favour of the OP No.2 in respect of the aforesaid 3 Cottah 8 chittaks 18 sq. ft. of Bastu Land to act on their behalf as per the said Power of Attorney.It is learnt by the complainant that they   i.e.   the proforma OPs herein also entered into a development agreement with the OP No.1 represented by OP no.2   in respect of the said 3 cottah 8 chittaks 18 sq.ft. keeping the complainant in the dark. At the time of execution of said Power of Attorney and development agreement the complainant who is also a co-sharer of the aforesaid Bastu Land   having 1/6^th share in it   was a minor and his father and natural guardian Sri Arun Kumar Banik looked after all his interests.  No information about the said development agreement and power of attorney was also given to the complainant’s father and the complainant and his father came to learn from local persons that OP no-2 was developing the said property by raising a multi-storied building upon the same   namely GULMOHAR APARTMENT   described in schedule mentionedand on acquiring such knowledge they i.e.   the complainant and his father met the OP no.2 in his office and asked said OP no.2 to refrain from raising any construction without entering into proper agreement with the complainant represented by his father and natural guardian and on being so challenged the OP no.2 told the complainant since the development agreement had already been entered into and work of construction was already undergoing there could not be any fresh development agreement and that the complainant would be allotted a complete residential flat once construction of the multi-storied apartment was over.  That in the same vein the Op no.2 entered into one oral agreement with the complainant.  The said oral agreement was entered into between the OP no.2 and the complainant represented by his father but intentionally and willfully the OP no.2 did not execute a proper agreement in respect of the schedule mentioned below flat and the said apartment being Gulmohar Apartment was completed to a certain extent in the early part of 2017 and the OP no.2 started selling out the flats that were complete by executing and registering proper deed of conveyance keeping the complainant completely in the dark about the same.  Whenever the complainant and his father met the OPno.2   the OP no.2 always stated that he would execute and register all the sale deeds of the respective flats simultaneously or in a single day once the construction of the entire apartment was over and that the same would be possible only on or about May   2018 and on the same date the letter of possession togetherwith delivery of possession of the said flat would be made in favour of the complainant and inspite of such verbal assurances the OKP no.2 killed time on one pretext or the other and did not handover possession of the said flat being part of owner’s allocated area in favour of the Complainant who is presently major person in terms of the oral agreement entered into between the OP no.2 and the complainant represented by his father.

The complainant recently caused searching in the office of A.D.S.R. Uttarpara and found out that the OP no.2 has already executed and registered several deeds of conveyance in favour of intending purchasers and has suppressed the said fact from the complainant.  Furthermore   in the said deeds of sale the OP no.2 has most fraudulently stated that Parbati Banik died intestate on 17/04/1992 leaving behind her husband Sri Benimadhab Banik   three sons namely Sri Laksmi Narayan Banik   Ganesh Banik   Sri Mithu Banik and two daughters namely Sova Banik and Mamata Banik.  The OP NO.2 has intentionally suppressed the fact that Parbati Banik had also another daughter namely Krishna Banik and the said Krishna Banik acquired undivided 1/6^th share in the aforesaid Bastu Property measuring 3 cottah 8 chittaks 18 sq.ft. on the demise of said Parbati Banik and her husband Benimadhab Banik.  Such suppression on his i.e.   the OP no.2’s part is not only amounts to practicing fraud upon the complainant but also cheating him from complainant’s legitimate share in the said property which the complainant has acquired on the death of his mother   i.e.   said Krishna Banik.  Also such material suppression on his (OP no.2) part has resulted in defamation to the complainant since people in the locality   friends and other persons have been left confused regarding his maternity and they have already started passing comments and the same has lowered him in the eyes of the people of his locality and also the locality where the aforesaid property i.e.   the house of his maternal grandfather situates and it mentioned in this context that although it is found from the deeds of conveyance executed and registered by the OP no.2 in favour of intending purchasers in respect of the flats of Gulmohar Apartment   said Gulmohar Apartment being described in scheduled mentioned that the OP no.2 solely executed and registered the same on behalf of the OP no.1 on a plain and simple regarding of those deeds it is evident that he is only one of the partners and the name of the other partner/partners has not been mentioned in those deeds.  As a result theOPno.2 has been cited as the representative of OPno.1 and the complainant craves leave to add any other partner of M/S Jona Construction if necessity arises.

Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite parties to hand over the possession in respect of the aforesaid flat together with possession letter in favour of the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs. 13  50  000/- as compensation and to pay a sum of Rs. 1  00  000/- for mental agony and anxiety and to give any other relief or reliefs as deem fit and proper.

Defense Case:-The opposite party Nos.3   4(a)   4(b) and 6contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against them and stated that the OP has constructed one apartment namely Gulmohar Apartment   at 20   G.G.G Sarani Upon Bastu land measuring 3 cottah 8 chittaks 18 sq.ft. comprised in R.S    Dag No.843   R.S. Khatian no.184   corresponding to L.R Dag No.1010   under L.R Khatian no.3211   being Mouza Bhadrakali   J.L. no.9   under Uttarpara kotrung municipality   P.O. Bhadrakali   PS Uttarpara   Dist-Hooghly.  That the above described Bastu Land originally belonged to one Parbati Banik   W/o Sri Benimadhab Banik   who obtained the same by dint of a partition deed being no.5730 for the year 1967.  Said Parbati Banik during her lifetime mutated her name before the concerned authorities and exercised her absolute right   title   interest and possession over the same by paying relevant taxes and rent in her name.  That said Parbati Banik died intestate on 17/04/1992 leaving behind her husband Sri Benimadhab Banik   three sons namely Sri Lakhsmi Narayan Banik   Sri Ganesh Banik (since deceased) and Sri Mithu Banik and three daughters namely Sova Banik   Mamata Banik (since deceased) and Krishna Banik.

That subsequently Benimadhab Banik died intestate leaving behind the aforesaid sons and daughters as the only legal heirs of himself and Parbati Banik.  Thus   the aforesaid sons and daughters acquired undivided 1/6^th share each in the said Bastu property measuring 3 cottah 8 chittaks 18 sq.ft. according to Hindu Succession Act 1956.  Thereafter the aforesaid sons and daughters of Parbati Banik and Benimadhab Banik exercised their right   title   interest and possession over the said Bastu Property according to the shares respectively and the aforesaid Krishna Banik died leaving behind her son Sri Soumyajit Banik i.e.   the complainant herein   as his only legal heir and it is true that at the time of death of Krishna Banik said Soumyajit Banik was a minor and all his interests were looked after by his next friend and natural guardian i.e.   his father and the aforesaid legal heirs of Parbati Banik namely Lakshmi Narayan Banik   Ganesh Banik   Mithu Banik   Sova Banik and Mamata Banik executed a power of attorney in favour of the OP no.2 in respect of the aforesaid 3 cottah 8 chittaks 18 sq.ft. of Bastu land to act on their behalf as per the said power of attorney.  It is also true that we the proforma OPs herein also entered into a development agreement with the OP no.1 represented by OP no.2in respect of the said 3 cottach 8 chittaks 18 sq. ft.  At the time of execution of said power of attorney and development agreement the complainant who is also a co-sharer of the aforesaid Bastu land   having 1/6^th share in it   was a minor and his father and natural guardian Sri Arun Kumar Banik looked after all his interests.

It is true that we informed the OP no.2 that the complainant is a co-sharer to the aforesaid Bastu Property just like us   on which the multistoried building has been raised   and that he should be allotted a flat just like us.  The OP no.2 informed us that an oral agreement had taken place between the OP no.2 and the father of the complainant who represented the interest of the complainant and that one residential flat measuring about 450 sq. ft. of covered area on the 2^nd floor would be allotted to the complainant and regarding rest of the contents of the complaint these opposite parties submit that the construction of the apartment namely  Gulmohar Apartment  is already over and we have been allotted our respective flats.  Some of the flats have also been sold to outsiders but inspite of repeated assurance and oral agreement the OP no.1 represented by OP no.2 did not hand over possession of the aforesaid flat measuring 450 sq. ft. of covered area on the 2^nd floor of Gulmohar Apartment at 20 B.G.G. sarani    P.O-Bhadrakali   P.S-Uttarpara   Dist-Hooghly.  We have no objection if the said flat is allotted in favour of the complainant and the complaint is allowed.

The opposite party Nos. 7 and 8 contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against them and stated that at the time of execution of Development Agreement and power of attorney all the heirs and legal representatives were present except the heirs of deceased Krishna Banik   namely Soumyajit Banik   the complainant herein and it is further stated that when this fact was coming to the knowledge of the OP no.2 promoter.  The promoter suggested that another agreement would be made ready and sent to the father namely Arun Kumar Banik husband of deceased of Krishna Banik for signature and execution as the heir of Krishna Banik was minor at that time and But the present proforma OP no.7 & 8 did not have any knowledge about the sending of second development agreement and power of attorney with the complainant herein for execution and signature  and the proforma OP no.7 and 8 did not also have no knowledge as to whether the complainant and his father came to learn from local people that a multi storied building would be constructed on said land admeasuring 3 cottahs 8 chittaks 18 square feet and whether the complainant came to the developer and restrained him for not  to construct any construction any further.

It is also not under any information that the developer denied to make ready any further Development agreements as the same has been done earlier and pursuant to that development work of construction had already been started and there could not be possible to any fresh development Agreement with the complainant herein and proforma OPs no.7 & 8 did not any knowledge about the assurance made by the developer   the Op;no.1 herein for allotment a complete residential flat in favour of the complainant herein when the said construction would be complete.  Nor any verbal agreement entered into by and between the developer and the complainant herein and it is submitted that this OPs shall have no objection whatsoever if the complainant gets the said flat ready if all the formalities are complete according to right   title and interest of the party and these proforma OPs did not have any information and/or any knowledge regarding the completion of the said apartment namely Gulmohar Apartment in the year 2017 and also did not have any information regarding the executive and registration of all flats in a single day possibly within May   2018 and this fact was duly informed to the said Soumyajit Banik   the complainant therein and these proforma OPs did not have any knowledge as to whether any search was made by the complainant regarding the execution and registration of deeds in favour of intending purchasers by suppressing the material facts that Parbati Banik had three sons and three daughters keeping aside the name of Krishna Banik   who was also acquired 1/6^th share in the said property and the proforma OP No. 7 and 8 submits that complainant may get the flat in question to the right   till and interest these proforma OP shall have no objection.

The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against them and stated that the OP No.1 & 2 were in knowledge that Parabati Debi at the time of her death left behind her husband Benimadhab Banik as well as three sons and two daughter as her only legal heirs and heiresses and after the death of Benimadhab Banik the property in question was accordingly devolved upon the said three sons and two daughters as only legal heirs a heiresses.  The said matter of inheritance was duly informed by the legal heirs of Parbati Banik and accordingly    being the partners of M/S Jona Construction As Developer have entered development agreement in respect of the premises being holding no.20   G.G.G. Sarani   Bhadrakali   Hooghly.  Be it further mentioned that the legal heirs of Attorney duly registered in the office of A.R.A III   Kolkata.  It is to be further mentioned that the nameof the Complainant’s mother has at all not been recorded in the Assessment Register of Uttarpara – Kotrung Municipality as an assesse which has also come to the notice of the letter dated 24.10.2016 issued by the Chairman of Uttarpara – Kotrung Municipality.  It was also not known to these OPs that Krishna Banik died leaving behind the complainant as only legal heir and these OPs No.1 & 2 never agreed either orally or in writing to deliver the schedule mentioned flat in favour of the complainant herein and no portion was allotted to the Complainant into the development agreement which has been made in between the owner and developer.  The claim made by the complainant isnothing but vague one.  The OPs had performed or discharged their duty in accordance with the Development Agreement and as per contention of the development agreement the OPs are not at all bound to handover schedule mentioned flat or to give any money to the complainant.  The complainant without challenging the development agreement or power of attorney before any court of law filed this complainant only to create pressure upon the OPs as well as squeeze money from them.  Be it further mentioned that the complainant inspite of having full knowledge regarding non – availability of his claim from the OPs filed this complaint in order to gain illegally and this complainant is not maintainable in law or in fact and liable to be dismissed in limit.

Issues/points for consideration

On the basis of the pleading of the parties   the District Commission for the interest of proper and complete adjudication of this case is going to adopt the following points for consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties or not?
2. Whether this Forum/ Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3. Is there any cause of action for filing this case by the complainant?
4. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
5. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief which has been prayed by the complainant in this case or not?

Evidence on record

The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite parties.

            The answering opposite party nos. 4(b) and 6 filed evidence on affidavit which transpires the averments of the written version and so it is needless to discuss.

Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the parties

Complainant and opposite party nos. 3   4(a)   4(b) and 6 filed written notes of argument. As per BNA the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of both sides are to be taken into consideration for passing final order.

            Argument as advanced by the agents of the complainant and the opposite party nos. 3   4(a)   4(b) and 6 heard in full. In course of argument ld. Lawyers of both sides have given emphasis on evidence and document produced by parties.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

The first three issues/ points of consideration which have been framed on the ground of maintainability and/ or jurisdiction   cause of action and whether complainant is a consumer in the eye of law   are very vital issues and so these three points of consideration  are  clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly at first.

   Regarding these three points of consideration it is very important to note that the opposite parties even after appearance in this case and after filing written version   have not filed any petition on the ground of nonmaitainability of this case due to the reason best known to them. Under this position this District Commission has passed the order of further hearing of this case. On this background it is also mention worthy that the opposite parties also have not filed any separate petition challenging the maintainability point   jurisdiction point and cause of action issue. The opposite parties in their written version have only pleaded the above noted points. This District Commission after going through the materials of the case record finds that the opposite parties are the a residents of Bhadrakali   Uttarpara   Hooghly and op nos. 1 and 2 also carrying on business at Uttarpara   Hooghly which are lying within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Commission. Moreover   this complaint case has been filed with a claim of below 20 lakhs and this matter is clearly indicating that this District Commission has also pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case. Thus   the point of jurisdiction which has been alleged by the opposite parties cannot be accepted. Moreover   u/s 11 of the Consumer Protection Act   1986 this District Commission has jurisdiction to try this case. The opposite parties also have raised the plea of limitation and in the written version it has been pointed out that this case is barred by limitation. But in this connection it is important to note that the provision of 24A of the Consumer Protection Act   1986 is very important and according to the provision of Section 24A complaint case can be entertained by the District Commission or State Commission or National Commission even after expiry of 2 years if the complainant satisfies the ld. Commission that he or she has sufficient ground for not filing the case within two years. Moreover in this instant case the cause of action has been continued and thus the above noted plea of the opposite parties which has been pointed out in the written version is also not acceptable. On close examination of the pleadings of the parties it also transpires that there is cause of action for filing this case by the complainant side against the opposite parties. Moreover after going through the provisions of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act   1986 it appears that this case is maintainable and according to the provision of Section 2 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act   1986. Complainant is a consumer in the eye of law. It is the settled principle of law that a consumer invoking the jurisdiction of the District Commission can seek such relief as he or she considers appropriate. This legal principle has been observed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor and it is reported in AIR2022SC1824.

   All these factors are clearly depicting that this case is maintainable and complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and this District Commission has territorial/ pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try this case and there is also cause of action for filing this case by the complainant against the opposite parties. Thus   the above noted three points of consideration are decided in favour of the complainant.

            The point no. 4 is related with the question as to whether there is any deficiency in the service on the part of the opposite parties or not? The point no. 5 is connected with the question as to whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief in this case or not? These two pints of consideration are interlinked and/ or interconnected with each other and for that reason these two points of consideration are clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly.

            For the purpose of deciding the fate of these two points of consideration and for the interest of getting answers of the above noted questions   there is necessity of scanning the evidence on affidavit filed by the parties and there is also necessity making scrutiny of the documents filed by the parties of this case.

            On comparative studies of the evidence on affidavit filed by the complainant with the evidence on affidavit filed by the opposite parties and on close compare of the documents filed by both parties it appears that on the following points of this case either there is admission on behalf of the both parties or the parties have not raised any dispute: 

1. It is admitted fact that one Parbati Banik wife of Benimadahb Banik was the owner of the Bastu land Measuring about 3 cottah 8 chittaks 18 sq.ft of land situated at premises no. 20   BGG Sarani   Bhadrakali   Uttarpara.
2. It is also admitted fact that she obtained the said property by dint of a partition deed being no. 5730 of the year 1967.
3. There is no dispute over the issue that the said Parbati Banik died leaving behind her husband Benimadhab Banik   three sons namely   Sri Lakhsmi Narayan Banik   Sri Ganesh Banik (since deceased) and Sri Mithu Banik and three daughters namely Sova Banik   Mamata Banik (Since deceased) and Krishna Banik (Since deceased).
4. There is no controversy over the issue that the said Parbati Banik died on 17.4.1992.
5. It is admitted fact that subsequently Sri Benimadhab Banik died leaving behind three sons namely   Sri Lakhsmi Narayan Banik   Sri Ganesh Banik (since deceased) and Sri Mithu Banik and three daughters namely Sova Banik   Mamata Banik (Since deceased) and Krishna Banik (Since deceased).
6. It is also admitted fact that the above noted sons and daughters of deceased Parbati Banik acquired undivided 1/6^th share in the said bastu property as per Hindu Succession Act   1956.
7. There is no dispute over the issue that thereafter said sons and daughters of deceased Parbati Banik and Benimadhab Banik exercised their right title interest and possession over the bastu property according to their shares.
8. There  is no controversy over the issue that Smt. Krishna Banik was the daughter of deceased Parbati Banik and Benimadhab Banik and she died leaving behind the complainant as minor.
9. It is admitted fact that Sri Lakhsmi Narayan Banik   Sri Ganesh Banik (since deceased) and Sri Mithu Banik and Mamata Banik executed a power of attorney in favour of op no. 2 in respect of the said bastu land.
10. It is also admitted fact that the proforma ops of this case entered into a development agreement with op no. 1 represented by op no. 2 in respect of the above noted bastu property.
11. There is no dispute over the issue that the complainant acquired 1/6^th share in the said property on the death of his mother Krishna Banik and Sri Arun Kumar Banik   father of the complainant used to look after the said property as natural guardian while the complainant was a minor.
12. There is no controversy over the issue that op nos. 1 and 2 raised a multistoried building under name and style  Gulmohor  apartment in the said bastu property and op no. 2 assured the complainant to allot a flat in the said property.
13. It is admitted fact that the op nos. 1 and 2 have not yet allotted any flat to the complainant although he has 1/6^th share in the said bastu property.
14. It is also admitted fact that op no. 3   4(a)   4(b) and 6 in their W/V admitted the case of the complainant and also admitted the fact that the complainant acquired 1/6^th share at the death of his mother Krishna Banik in the said property.
15. There is no dispute over the issue that op nos. 7 and 8 also admitted the case of the complainant and also admitted the fact that the complainant acquired 1/6^th share at the death of his mother Krishna Banik in the said property.

Regarding the above noted admitted facts and information there is no necessity of passing any separate observation as it is the settled principle of law that fact admitted need not be proved. This legal principle has been embodied in Section 58 of the Evidence Act.

                   On the background of the above noted admitted facts and circumstances the parties of this case are differing on the point and/ or apple of discord between the parties of this case is that the complainant is claiming that he has acquired 1/6^th share in the above noted bastu land and the op no. 2 assured to allot a flat measuring about 450 sq.ft. in the said  Gulmohor  apartment situated at 20   BGG Sarani   Bhadrakali   P.S. Uttarpara   Dist. Hooghly but the said flat has not yet been allotted. But on the other hand the op nos. 1 and 2 adopted the defense plea that the complainant was not at all a legal heir of Krishna Banik and he has not acquired any share in the said bastu property and so he is not entitled to get any flat in the said apartment.

               In connection with the matter of deciding the fate of the above noted points of differences and/ or apple of discord of the parties   this District Commission after going through the materials of this case record finds that the op nos. 3   4(a)   4(b)   6   7 and 8 have candidly admitted that the complainant has 1/6^th share in the above noted bastu land and so he is entitled to get a flat in the  Gulmohor  apartment. This part of admission on the part of the maximum ops   has not been controverted or disproved by the op nos. 1 and 2 by placing cogent document. Moreover the op nos. 1 and 2 have no right to deny the law of inheritance. There is no evidence on the case record to show that the complainant is not a co-sharer in respect of the above noted bastu property. All these factors are clearly depicting that the op nos. 1 and 2 are intentionally depriving the complainant in the matter of allotting a flat in the  Gulmohor  apartment situated at 20   BGG   Sarani   Bhadrakali   P.S. Uttarpara   Dist. Hooghly. This matter is clearly reflecting that the op nos. 1 and 2 have acted negligently and also have committed deficiency of service. For these reasons the complainant is entitled to get relief in respect of points of consideration nos. 4 and 5.

In the result it is accordingly

ordered

that the complaint case being no. 69 of 2019 be and the same is allowed on contest but in part.

It is held that complainant is entitled to get a flat measuring about 450 sq.ft. at  Gulmohor Apartment  situated at 20   BGG Sarani   Bhadrakali   P.S. Uttarpara   Dist. Hooghly from op nos. 1 and 2 and complainant is also entitled to get compensation of Rs. 30  000/- for deficiency of service and litigation cost of Rs. 5000/-.

Opposite party nos. 1 and 2 are directed to allot a flat and hand over possession of the flat measuring about 450 at  Gulmohor Apartment  situated at 20   BGG Sarani   Bhadrakali   P.S. Uttarpara   Dist. Hooghly and to execute and register sale deed in favour of the complainant and to pay the compensation and litigation cost within 45 days from the date of this order otherwise complainant is given liberty to execute this order as per law.

  In the event of nonpayment/ noncompliance of the above noted direction the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 are also directed to pay and/ or deposit Rs. 15  000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of D.C.D.R.C.   Hooghly which is to be utilized for the purpose of poor litigant public.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.

            The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in