HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint case under section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been filed against the opposite parties praying for the following reliefs :-

“a) Order directing the O.P. No. 1 / Developer to hand over and deliver your petitioners’ allocations as morefully described in the Schedule ‘B’ hereinbelow to them in terms of the Development Agreement dated 14/03/2012 and Supplementary / Additional Agreement dated 01/04/2013;

b) Order of the Permanent Injunction restraining the O.P. No. 1/ Developer from creating any third party interest, parting with possession, alienating, transferring, encumbering in any manner whatsoever in favour of any person, third party, stranger, outsider in respect of your petitioners’ allocations as morefully described in the Schedule ‘B’ hereinbelow and the Developer / Opposite Party No. 1’s allocation in the Schedule ‘A’ premises, and, from undertaking any further constructions in the new proposed building appertaining to the Schedule ‘A’ premises;

c) Order directing the O.P. No. 1/ Developer to pay to your petitioners their share in the newly constructed 4^th floor and 5^th floor in the new proposed building appertaining to the said premises as morefully described in the Schedule ‘A’ hereinbelow as per the prevailing market rate;

AND / OR

c1) Order directing the O.P. No. 1 / Developer to enter into a fresh agreement with the owners including your petitioners as regard to the newly constructed 5^th floor in the new proposed building appertaining to the said premises as morefully described in the Schedule ‘A’ hereinbelow;

d) Order directing the O.P. No. 1 / Developer to provide alternative accommodation to the Complainant / Petitioner No. 1 at the cost and expenses of the O.P. No. 1 / Developer during the time of construction of the proposed new building and to bear the rents of the alternative accommodation till the date of handing over of the owners’ allocated portions in terms of Article (IX)(9.3) of the Development Agreement dated 14/03/2012;

e) Order directing the O.P. No. 1 / Developer to pay to your petitioners an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakh only) towards mental and physical agony, injury, sufferings, harassment and prejudice suffered by your petitioners for several years due to the O.P. No. 1 / Developer’s illegal, overt and negligent acts and activities as stated hereinabove.

f) Order/s for costs; and;

g) Further Order/s to which the Complainants/ Petitioners may be found entitled to in law and in equity.”

2. Heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the complainants and also carefully perused the petition of complaint and its Annexures.

3. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the complainants and on perusal of the petition of complaint filed by the complainants it appears to me that one Smt. Soma Bose and Sri Arnab Mukherjee have filed the instant complaint case. Smt. Soma Bose is represented by her constituted Attorney / younger brother Sri Arnab Mukherjee.

4. It also appears to me that Annexure ‘C’ is the copy of the said so-called General Power of Attorney. Copy of the said so-called General Power of Attorney discloses that the alleged General Power of Attorney was executed by Smt. Soma Bose on 06.03.2020 at Washington, USA, i.e. outside India.

5. The said copy of General Power of Attorney also discloses that the said so-called General Power of Attorney has not been authenticated by a Notary Public or any Court, Judge, Magistrate, Indian Consul or Vice Consul or representative of the Central Government to accept it as valid.

     6. It also discloses that the so-called General Power of Attorney bears no signature of the witnesses who have seen the  executant to sign on the said so-called General Power of Attorney.

7. It also discloses that it bears no certificate by a qualified Notary Advocate to the effect that the executant was competent to grant a General Power of Attorney. Therefore, on consideration of the said so-called General Power of Attorney it can be said that it was not an authenticated, valid General Power of Attorney.

8. In the result, I hold that the said so-called General Power of Attorney is not valid and legal.  No action can be taken on the basis of the so-called General Power of Attorney. In consequence, any order and / or findings passed on the basis of such General Power of Attorney cannot subsist and / or validly taken. So, the complaint as well as the order passed thereon stand dismissed.

9. The consumer case is thus disposed of accordingly.