DATE OF FILING : 20-06-2013.
DATE OF S/R : 22-07-2013.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 28-05-2015.
Sri Awtar Singh,
son of late Amar Singh,
- Smt. Nilam Singh,
wife of Sri Awtar Singh,
residing at Arihant Apartment, Block B,
Flat No. 105/A, 1st floor,
71, Bireswar Chatterjee Street, P.S. Bally,
District Howrah,
PIN 711 201. …...…….. ……..………….…………………... COMPLAINANTS.
Versus -
M/S. Pragati Construction Enterprises,
a partnership firm, having its office
at 34, Rose Merry Lane, P.S. Golabari,
District Howrah,
represented by its partners mamely
- Sri Rohit Singh,
son of Sri Tapeswar Singh,
residing at 417, G.T. ( North ), P.S. Golabari,
District Howrah,
at present residing at OM Towers, Block H, 7th floor,
36/C, B.T. Road, Kolkata 700 002.
- Sri Rama Sankar Pandey,
son of late Lokenath Pandey,
residing at 25/26, Rose Merry Lane, P.S. Golabari,
District Howrah.
- Ghanshyam Agarwal,
son of Kishanlal Agarwal,
residing at 34, Rose Merry Lane, P.S. Golabari,
District Howrah.
- Smt. Prema Kumar,
wife of Sri Pramodanand Kumar,
residing at D 1 / 4, Belur Housing Estate, P.O. Sapuipara, P.S. Bally,
District Howrah.
- Ram Sagar Poddar,
son of Bishnu Poddar,
residing at 5, Nanda Ghosh Road, P.S. Golabari,
District Howrah.
- Sri Lal Babu Rai,
son of Sri Laddu Rai,
residing at Nanda Ghosh Road, P.S. Golabari,
District Howrah.
- Sri Aparesh Banerjee,
son of Sadananda Banerjee,
residing at village Makaltala, P.O. Durgapur,
P.S. Bally, District Howrah.
- Sri Kapoor Chand Jain,
Son of late Badelal Jain.
- Sri Raj Kumar Jain,
son of late Mahipal Jain.
- Sri Pradip Kumar Jain,
son of Mahipal Jain,
- Sri Harshit Jain,
son of late Subodh Kumar Jain.
- Sri Sooraj Kumar Jain,
son of late Mahipal Jain.
- Sri Raju Kumar Jain,
son of late Mahipal Jain.
- Smt. Kamala Devi,
wife of late Mahipal Jain.
- Smt. Shakuntala Devi Jain,
wife of Bimal Kumar Jain and
daughter of late Mahipal Jain.
- Smt. Maya Devi Jain,
wife of Anand Kumar Jain and
daughter of late Mahipal Jain.
- Smt. Kiran Devi Jain,
wife of Sanjay Jain and daughter of late Mahipal Jain.
- Sri Dilip Kumar Jain,
son of late Hargobind Jain,
all are residing at 71, Bireswar Chatterjee Street,
P.O. & P.S. Bally,
District Howrah….……..……………………………………………………………Opposite Parties.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri Subrata Sarker.
F I N A L O R D E R
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 conveyancein respect of the schedule flat and to pay compensation of Rs. 3 lacs, to pay the additional cost of registrationand litigation costs as the o.ps. in violation of the terms of agreement for saled ated 24.08.2004have been turning deaf ear to the complainant’s request to execute and register the flat in question.
It is the case of the complainant that an agreement for sale was entered in March, 2006 between the complainant and the o.ps., being o.p. nos. 1 to 7 as developer and 8 to 18 as land owners with respect to a flat measuring 800 sq. ft. plus 15% super built up area@ Rs. 550/- per sq. ft. on 1stfloor along with undivided proportionate share and interest in the land and common areas and facilitiesin the multistoried building constructed on the land havingR.S. Dag no. 8442 under R.S. Khatianno. 4053 and dag no. 8443 under khatian no. 1796, J.L. no. 14 of Mouza Bally, P.S. Bally District Howrah, appertaining to Bally Municipality holding no. 71, BireswarChatterjee Street, P.S. Bally, District Howrah,. 552, G.T. Road ( South ), P.S. & District Howrah, for a total consideration amount of Rs. 4,95,000/- which was paid in full by the complainant with Rs. 5,000/- only for separate electric meter vide Annexure. And o.ps. also delivered the possession of the said flat. And the electric and cooking gas connection ( LPG ) have also been provided to the complainant at the same address. But till date o.ps.have neglected to execute the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant. Due to non registration of the flat for such a long time, complainant is compelled to bear the registration cost at the enhanced rate.Complainant made repeated requests but o.ps. remained totally silent on the issue of execution of sale deed. Being frustrated and finding no other alternative complainant filed this instant case with the aforesaid prayers.
Notices were served. All the o.ps.appeared and filed written version. So the matter was heard on contest.
- Upon pleadings of parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- Both the points are taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the separate written versions filed by the o.ps., the developer as well as the owners of the land and noted their contents.It appears from the Annexures i.e., Agreement for sale,that the complainant entered into an agreement for purchase of the flat in question measuring 800 sq. ft. on the 1st floor, Block ‘A’, having flat no. A-105,at a consideration of Rs. 4,95,000/- which he paid in total vide memo of consideration. O.p. nos. 1 to 7 also delivered the possession of the flat to the complainant but as there is one T.S. being no. 124 of 2012 pending, instituted by o.p. nos. 10 to 17 against o.p. nos. 1 to 7 and there is an injunction vide Annexure ‘A’ of the written version of o.p. nos. 10 to 17,the execution and registration of the deed of conveyance cannot be made in favour of the complainant with respect to the schedule flat.Here we take a pause. The T.S. is pending between the developers and the landlords. Complainant is no way connected with the T.S. being no. 124 of 2012. Complainant paid the entire consideration amount within December, 2006. And o.p. nos. 1 to 7 received the said amount from the complainant by the strength of development agreement dated04.9.2002 entered between the developers and the landlords. So there is no fault on the part of the complainant for which the execution and registration of the deed of conveyance can be withheld.And it is easily understood that the stamp duty has increased by lips and bounds since 2006 which already created a tremendous mental agony for the complainant. It has caused severe financial loss to the complainant, too. It is very easily understood that he has been harassed by the o.ps. like any thing which should not be perpetuated any more.The o.p. landlords, nos. 8 to 18 have already revoked the general power of attorney granted in favour of the developers, o.p. nos. 1 to 7 in the mean time. So it is crystal clear that o.ps. have left no stone unturned to harass the complainant.O.ps. have miserably failed to keep promise which certainly amounts to deficiency in service coupled with unfair trade practiceon their part which should not be allowed to be perpetuated for an indefinite period.And we are of the candid opinion that it is a fit case where the prayers of the complainant should be allowed. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 204 of 2014 ( HDF 204 of 2014 ) be and the same is allowed on contest with costs against the O.Ps.
The O.Ps. be jointly or severally directed to execute and register the deed of sale in favour of the complainant with respect to the flat in question within 30 days from the date of this order i.d., Rs. 50/- per day shall be imposed upon the o.ps. till actual execution and registration of the sale deed. The complainant is to bear the cost of registration.
The o.ps. do further pay jointly or severally a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing mental pain and prolonged harassment together with litigation costs of Rs. 5,000/-.
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.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( Jhumki Saha )
Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.
