DATE OF FILING : 07.05.2014.
DATE OF S/R : 09.06.2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 14.01.2015.
1.Sri Sankar Das,
son of late Balai Das,
2.Chhaya Das,
wife of Sri Sankar Das,
residing at 7/10, Malikpara Lane, P.S. Chatterjeehat
( previously Shibpur ), District Howrah,
PIN 711104. ………………………………………………… COMPLAINANTS.
- Versus -
1.M/s. Sristi Developers,
a partnership firm,
having its registered office at
13, Siddheswari Tala Lane, P.O. Ramkrishnapur,
P.S. & District Howrah,
PIN 711101, being represented by its partners
( i ) Sri Suranjan Adhikari,
son of Sri Jyotindra Nath Adhikari,
residing at 20/2, Shastri Narendra Nath Ganguly Road,
Flat no. 110 ( 2nd floor ), P.S. Shibpur,
District Howrah 711104,
(ii) Sri Debasis Das,
son of Sri Netai Chandra Das,
residing at 13, Siddheswari Tala Lane, P.O. Ramkrishnapur,
P.S. & District Howrah,
PIN 711104,
2.Sri Sukumar Samanta,
son of Sri Santosh Samanta,
3.Smt. Ranu Bala Samanta,
wife of Sri Sukumar Samanta,
residing at Bakultala Lane, P.S. Jagacha,
District Howrah,
PIN 711104.
4.Sri Ajit Manna,
son of late Dhiren Manna,
residing at village & P.O. Garalgacha, Mannapara,
P.S. Chanditala, District Hooghly.
5.Sri Asit Shit,
son of Laxmi Chandra Shit,
residing at village & P.O. Garalgacha, Pramnikpara, P.S. Chanditala,
District Hooghly. …………….……………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
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 remove the collapsible gate and obstruction created on a common passage for ingress and egress to and from the flat of the ‘B’ schedule and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs together with litigation costs as the o.p. no. 1 in spite of repeated requests did not remove the obstruction of the collapsible gate.
2. The o.p. nos. 2 & 3 in the written version contended interalia that they have no objection if the obstruction is removed from the common passage.
3.The o.p. no. 1 in his written version contended interalia that there is no
deficiency in service on his part; that the allegation is imaginary. So the complaint should be dismissed.
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. Admittedly the complainants are in possession of the ‘B’ schedule property along with the right to enjoy common privileges and amenities attached thereto on North and Eastern Side of the building vide sale deed dated 28.11.2013. But the o.p. no. 1 has installed a collapsible gate on the Northern side common passage meant for ingress and egress of the complainants. Naturally the o.p. no. 1 being a service provider deliberately created obstruction to the common passage for the reason best known to him. Therefore, this is a fit case where the prayer of the complainants shall be allowed.
Both the points are accordingly disposed of.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 274 of 2014 ( HDF 274 of 2014 ) be and the same is allowed on contest as against the o.p. no. 1 Suranjan Adhikary with costs and dismissed as against the rest without costs.
The O.Ps. be directed to remove the obstruction created on the common passage and to allow free egress and ingress to the complainants to their flat within 30 days from the date of this order.
The o.ps. be further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the complainants for causing mental pain and unnecessary harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost within the period as mentioned above.
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.
