DATE OF FILING : 25-04-2012.
DATE OF S/R : 14-06-2012.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 28-09-2012.
1. Smt. Krishna Mahajan,
w/o. Niranjan Mahajan,
2. Niranjan Mahajan,
s/o. late Jyotish chandra Mahajan,
24, Naskarpara Lane, P.S. Shibpur,
District –Howrah---------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANTS.
- Versus -
1. M/s. Buildco Developers,
a proprietorship Firm, being represented
by Amitava Haldar,
s/o. lt. Adhideb Haldar of 12/4, B.G. Road, P.S. Shibpur,
District – Howrah, having its registered office
at 48/1, Laxminarayantola Road, P.S. Shibpur,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711103.
2. Asim Haldar,
s/o. lt. Laxmi Kanta Haldar
of Z-3/333 Reverside Road, P.S. Motiaburz,
Kolkata – 44.
3. Smt. Aruna Pramanick,
w/o. Prodip Pramanick
of 3/299/1, Riverside Road, P.S. Motiaburz,
Kolkata – 44.
4. Asit Haldar,
s/o. lt. Laxmi Kanta Haldar
5. Anupama Haldar,
6. Expunged o.p. no. 6.
7. Robin Haldar,
8. Samir Haldar,
Both o.p. nos. 7 & 8 are sons of
Late Dhirandra Kumar Haldar,
of Naskarpra Lane, P.S. Shibpur,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711103. -----------------------------------------------------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 complainants U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986,
as amended against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service U/S 2( 1 )( g ), 2( 1 )( o ) of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainants have prayed for direction upon the O.P. no. 1 to execute and register the deed of conveyance with respect to the flat mentioned in the schedule, to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 3 lacs for mental agony and harassment and to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as enhanced price for registration fees and stamp duty together with the litigation costs as the o.p. no. 1 in spite of receiving Rs. 7,15,000/- vide agreement dated 16-07-2010 did not execute the deed of conveyance with respect to the flat as mentioned in the schedule in spite of repeted requests.
2. The o.p. no. 1 by filing written version contested the complaint, challenged
the maintainability of the instant complaint and contended interalia that the agreement dated 16-07-2010 is an unregistered one ; that the petitioners have no locus standi to file this complaint ; that the complaint is thoroughly misconceived ; that the o.p. no. 1 is an ailing person and suffering from Cancer ; that taking the opportunity of the ailment of o.p. no. 1 the complainants have managed to procure some documents and signatures. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
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.P. ?
iii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
4. POINT NO. 1
The agreement dated 16-07-2010 between the complainants and o.p. no. 1 was for sale of the 1st floor flat as mentioned in the schedule. Naturally the complainants are consumers within the meaning of the C.P. Act, 1986. The argument that this is a case of Specific Performance of Contract and this Forum is not a the proper place for the instant complaint is thoroughly misconceived. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 states that this Act is not in derogation of the provision of any other law for the time being in force. So the dispute over maintainability is set at rest. The point is accordingly disposed of.
5. POINT NOS. 2 & 3
Both the points are taken up together for consideration. The o.p. no. 1 received Rs. 7.15,000/- from the complainant for the agreeed amount was Rs. 7,14,000/- for the purchase of the flat. The enclosures unerringly show that the o.p. no. 1 received the amount and now sitting tight over the issue of execution of the deed on the plea of his ailment ( Cancer ). In fact the conduct of the o.p. no. 1 amounts to unfair trade practice and cannot be supported from the point of view of law. He has no way to escape from the rigours of law. Complainats have been in possession of the flat since 24-08-2011. Unless the property is registered in favour of the complainants, their owner, is not established. Therefore, we are of the view that this a fit case for granting relief to the complainant as prayed for.
Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 34 of 2012 ( HDF 34 of 2012 ) be and the same is allowed on contest against o.p. no. 1 with costs and dismissed against the rst without cost.
The O.P. no. 1 be directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance with respect to the flat mentioned in the schedule in favour of the complainants within 30 days from the date of this order.
The o.p. no. 1 be further directed to pay a compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainants for causing mental agony and prolonged harassment.
The o.p. no. 1 do further pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as enhanced price for registration fees and stamp duty to the petitioners.
The complainant is entitle to a litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- from the o.p. no. 1.
The o.p. no. 1 be directed to pay the total amount aggregating Rs. 1,55,000/- within one month from the date of this order failing the amount shall carry interest @ Rs. 12% per annum.
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.
