Order No. 16 dt. 14/07/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant for the purpose of purchasing a flat entered into an agreement dated 10/07/2000 with the o.p. nos. 1 to 3,Developers of the premises and sri Paresh Chandra Roy, owner of the premises, deceased subsequently for purchase of one flat on the 2nd floor, back(North-east) side measuring about 700 sq.ft. super built up area of the four storied building together with undivided proportionate share of the land and common areas and facilities of the said building under Mouza- Arakpur, S.P.no.170, C.S. Plot no-602(P), J.L.No.39, P.S. Lake, KMC Ward No.93, Kolkata 700 045 from the developers allocation of the said four storied building more fully described in the schedule for a total consideration of Rs.8,40,000/- (Rupees eight lakh forty thousand) only which was fully paid by the complainant to the o.ps (o.p.-1, o.p.-2 and o.p.-3) who in turn delivered physical possession of the said flat to the complainant on 08/08/2001 with issuing possession letter dated 08/08/2001 on the same date. But the deed of conveyance has not yet been done by the o.ps. Complainant has been persuading the o.ps for execution of deeds repeatedly since having possession of the flat on08/08/2001. For various reasons as well as for number of pleas by the o.ps , the matter of conveyance has been delayed. Lastly on 15/01/2015 lawyer’s notice had been issued and that had been duly received by the o.ps on 27/01/05 and 28/01/2015. But the o.ps were unmoved as usual and the complainant lodged this complainant on 08/06/2015 seeking direction on the o.ps. to execute the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant with compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- for extra cost of registration as well as compensation for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-.
PR & TR showed that notices were received by o.p.no.4 to o.p.no.7 against notice dated 12/08/2015. so fresh notice had been issued to o.p.-1 to o.p.-3 and but only o.p.-3 appeared. For o.p.1 and o.p.2 complainant had been asked to issue notice in the daily newspaper and complainant submitted a copy of Anandabazar Patrika for the same. In spite of the above initiatives by the complainant o.ps did not appear and the case had been fixed ex-parte against all the seven o.ps.
On the basis of the pleading of the complainant the following points are to be decided:
- Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
All points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
We have gone through the complaint petition, arguments and the materials on record. In order to prove the case the complainant adduced evidence against which there is no objection as the case has been proceeded ex-parte against the o.ps. Due to unchallenged testimony there is little scope to disbelieve the documents produced by the complainant. Complainant paid full consideration on 08/08/2001 and took possession on 08/08/2001. Therefore, the complainant had been suffering for 16 years. In the mean time cost of registration had been increased in times with time. In view of the above we hold that deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps caused mental agony to the complainant and also caused escalation of registration cost of conveyance for which the complainant will be entitled to get compensation and cost.
Hence, ordered.
that the case no.262/2015 is allowed ex-parte against the o.ps with cost. O.ps are directed jointly and/or severally to execute the deed of conveyance with compensation of Rs.40,000/- ( Rupees Forty thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
