DATE OF FILING                    :     07-08-2015.

DATE OF S/R                            :      22-05-2015.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     18-08-2015.

Chhotelal Gupta,

son of Sri Prabhunath Gupta,

79/A, Girish  Ghosh Road, P.S. Belur,

District Howrah,

PIN 711204. …………. ……….. ……..………….…………………...  COMPLAINANT.

• Versus-

         1. Nathu Singh,     

   

• Mahesh Singh,

  son of late Bhimraj Singh,

  both are 256, G.T. Road, P.O. Liluah, P.S. Belur,

  District Howrah,

  PIN 711204.…….……..…………………………………………………………..…Opposite Parties.

                                                  P    R    E     S    E    N     T

             Hon’ble President  :   Shri  B. D.  Nanda,  M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.

                               Hon’ble Member      :      Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                      Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak .   

              F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1. The instant case was filed by complainant, namely, Chhotelal Gupta, U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant hasprayed for direction upon the o.ps. to execute and register the shop in question and to pay compensation of Rs. 1 lac and costs along with other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.

    

2. It is the case of the complainant that he made an advance payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- for purchasing a shop room measuring 98 sq. ft.including super built area out of total consideration amount of Rs. 2,80,000/-from the o.ps.which is situated at 256, G.T. Road, ground floor, P.S. Belur, District Howrah, and for that purpose an agreement forsale dated 01.10.2013 was entered between the complainant and the o.ps. Out of total consideration amount complainant paid Rs. 2,00,000/- and he is ready to pay the balance consideration amount at the time of registrationas per the terms of the agreement vide Annexure I but the o.ps. are not ready to register the shop room in question. For several times complainant requested the o.ps. for registration but they did not pay any heed. After that complainant sent an advocate’s letter dated 09.03.2015 to the opposite parties vide Annexure II.But o.ps. remained totally silent on the issue of registration of sale deed. Being frustrated and finding no other alternativecomplainant filed this instant case.

    

3. In spite of proper service of notice upon the o.ps., they appeared but not filed written version. So the matter was heard ex parte against the o.ps.

4.        Two points  arose for determination :

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

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

   DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

   5. Both the points aretaken up together for consideration. It appears from the Annexures i.e., Agreement for sale dated 01.10.2013   between the complainant and the o.ps.  that  both the parties  entered into an agreement for sale with respect to a shop room measuring 98 sq. ft. including super built area  on the ground   floor at a consideration of Rs. 2,80,000/-  out of which complainant paid Rs. 2,00,000/- in total vide memo of consideration.  But the o.ps. even after receiving the lawyer’s notice dated 09.3.2015, did not execute and register the sale in favour of the complainant. So it is crystal clear that without any fault on  the part of the  complainant, he has been harassed by the o.ps. like any thing which should not be perpetuated any more. Moreover, the o.ps. have not cared to file any written version to controvert and contest the allegation made by the complaiant in his complaint petition which clearly shows that they have nothing to put forward in their favour. And the complaint petition remains unchallenged and uncontroverted. And we have no difficulty to believe the unchallenged testimony of the complainant.  O.ps. have miserably failed   to keep promise which certainly amounts to deficiency in  service coupled with unfair trade practice  on their  part which should not be allowed to be perpetuated for an indefinite period.   And we are of the candid opinion that it is a fit case where the prayers of the complainant  should be allowed. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

      Hence,                             

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

           That the C. C. Case No. 133 of 2015 ( HDF 133 of 2015 )  be and the same is   allowed ex parte  with  costs as   against  the O.Ps.  

      The O.Ps. be jointly or severally directed to execute and register the deed of sale in favour of the complainant with respect to the  shop room   in question after receiving the rest amount  within 30 days from the date of this order i.d., Rs. 50/- per day shall be imposed upon the o.ps. till actual execution and registration of the sale deed and to handover the peaceful possession of the same, if not already delivered. The complainant is to bear the cost of registration.    

      The o.ps. do further  pay jointly or severally a  sum of Rs. 7,000/- as compensation to the complainant  for causing mental pain and prolonged harassment together with litigation costs  of Rs. 3,000/- within one month from the date of this order i.d., the total amount of Rs. 10,000/-  shall carry @ 9% interest till realization.        

      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.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

      (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                  

  Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.