1.      Shri Ashit Baran Rakshit,

s/o. Naqrayan  Ch. Rakshit, residing at 57/3/1, Dewan Gazi Raod, P.S. and P.O. Bally, District – Howrah.

2.      Tina Rakshi,

w/o. Ashit Baran Rakshit,

residing at 57/3/1, Dewan Gazi Road,

P.S. and P.O. Bally,

District – Howrah.---------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANTS.

-          Versus   -

-           

1.      M/S. Maa Manasa Builders & Developers,

having office at Santinagar (Middle ), Srinagar Colony, P.O. Ghoshpara ( old P.O. Sapuipara ), P.S. Nischinda ( old P.S. Bally ),District –Howrah, PIN – 711227.

2.      Upen Chandra Das,

residing at 40/1, Dharmatala Road, Balur, P.S. Bally,

District – Howrah,

PIN – 711202.

3.      Suresh Das,

proprietor of M/S. Maa Manasa Builders & Developers,

having office at Santinagar ( Middle ),

Srinagar Colony, P.O.  Ghoshpara ( old P.O. Sapuipara ),

P.S. Nischinda ( old P.S. Bally ),

District – Howrah,

PIN – 711227.------------------------------------------------------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

wherein the complainants have  prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to  execute ad register the proper sale deed with respect to the flat measuring 555 sq. ft. at holding no. 28B Thakur Ramakrishan Lane, Ward No. 10, P.S. Bally, Howrah, and for compensation together with litigation costs as the O.Ps. in spite of receiving Rs. 1,80,000/- as part consideration money out of total consideration of Rs. 2,60,000/- did not execute and register the same.  

2.                  Notices were properly sent at the address of the O.Ps. but those were  returned

with endorsement ‘left’. In view of the latest position of law the endorsement ‘left’ is a good service as the O.Ps. did not leave there on going address.  

3.                  Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)                    Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainants are  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

4.      Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. From enclosures it is

apparent that the O.Ps. received Rs. 1,80,000/- out of the total consideration of Rs. 2,60,000/-. In not executing proper deed of conveyance the O.Ps. adopted unfair trade practice and also committed deficiency in service.  Therefore, it is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed.  Points under consideration are accordingly decided.             

      Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 223 of 2013 ( HDF 223 of 2013 )  be  and the same is allowed ex parte with costs   against  the O.Ps.  

      The O.Ps. be directed to execute and register proper deed of conveyance in respect of the complainant with respect to the proposed flat measuring 555 sq. ft. at 28/B, Thakur Ramkrishna Lane, Ward No. 10, P.S. Bally, Howrah, within 30 days from the date of this order.

      The o.ps. be further directed to pay a compensation jointly and severally to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- for causing mental pain, agony, prolonged harassment and towards costs of doors, windows etc.

      The complainants are also entitled to a litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- from the O.Ps.

      The complainants are 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.  

  (    T.K. Bhattacharya  )                                              

  President,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.