Judgment : Dt.31.8.2017

Shri S. K. Verma, President.

            This is a complaint made by (1) Sri Pradip Chandra Dutta, son of Late Pranesh Chandra Dutta, (2) Smt. Dipti Rani Dutta, wife of Sri Pradip Chandra Dutta, both are residing at 2/32/1, Azadgarh, P.S.- Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 040 against – (1) M/s. STD Associates represented by its sole proprietor Smt. Sukanya Dutta, wife of Late Tapas Dutta of 2/52, Azadgarh, P.S.- Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 040, OP No.1 and (2) Smt. Gita Dey, wife of Late Subimal Chandra Dey of  2/32/1, Azadgarh, P.S.- Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 040, now residing at 37, K.C.Ghosh Road, Subhas Nagar, Katpol, PO-Sodepur, P.S.-Khardah, Dist.-North 24 Pgs, PIN-700 110, praying for necessary order so that the OP No.2 remains present before the Registrar’s office for completion of the process of registration of the deed of conveyance and OP No.2 pays cost and compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant being consumer entered into an agreement for sale for purchasing a flat in the first floor having super built up area of 830 sq.ft. consisting of 2 bedrooms, 1 kitchen, 1 dining, 1 bath cum privy, 1 W.C. and two balconies, at a consideration amount of Rs.4,35,000/-. Landowner Smt. Gita Dey was made confirming party and she signed and executed agreement for sale. Smt. Gita Dey had entered into joint venture agreement with Tapas Dutta and also executed a general power of attorney in favour of Tapas Dutta.

            Complainant pursued the opposite parties to make a conveyance deed in their favour. But, they did not oblige. So, Complainant files this case.

            OP No.1 has already made his submission during hearing. He is ready to execute the registered deed and so he did not file any written version and contest the case finally.

            OP No.2 files written version and denied the allegations of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of this complaint.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed affidavit in chief to which OP No.2 filed questionnaire. Complainant filed affidavit-in-reply. OP No.2 filed evidence against which Complainant files questionnaire to which OP No.2 files affidavit-in-reply.

            Main point for determination is whether the Complainant I entitled to the relief as prayed for.

            On perusal of the prayer portion, it appears that Complainant has sought for making a conveyance deed in their favour. In this regard, Complainant has filed only the agreement for sale which reveals that there was an agreement for sale of flat of 830 sq.ft. in favour of the Complainants. This agreement was entered into between the parties on 8.5.2006. Consequent upon that OPs delivered possession in favour of the Complainants and they are enjoying the flat. Further, on perusal of affidavit-in-chief, questionnaire and affidavit-in-reply of Complainants and OP No.2 does not reveal any dispute regarding the claim made by Complainants except that OPs asked for more money. However, at the time of agreement Ld. Advocate for OP No.2 submitted that his client is ready and willing to make a conveyance deed. Further, Ld. Advocate submitted that the claim of compensation of Rs.50,000/- is baseless as there was latches on the part of Complainant also.

            Considering facts and circumstances, we are of the view that this is a fit case for passing a decree in favour of Complainants.

            Hence,

ordered

            CC/568/2016 and the same is allowed on contest. OPs are directed to make conveyance deed in favour of Complainants within three months of this order. In default, the Conveyance Deed shall be made through this Forum.