HDF CASE NO.   13  OF  2011

Samarendra Kumar Mukherjee,

residing at Village & P.O. Chunavati,

P.S. Sankrail,  

District – Howrah. -------------------------Complainant.

                       -   Versus   -

1.       Noor Islam Mullick,

son of Late Attar Rahaman Mullick.

2.       Colenoor alias Kohinoor Bibi,

          wife of Sk. Modbul.

3.       Abdur Rahaman Mullick,

4.       Hannan Mullick,

5.       Manna Mulickl,

          all above are sons of

          Late Noor Hossain Mullick,

           residing at village – Pddra, P.O. Chunavati,

           P.S. Sankrail,

           District – Howrah,

           PIN – 711319. -----------------Opposite parties.

P    R    E    S    E    N     T

Hon’ble President  :  Shri T.K. Bhattacharya.

Hon’ble Member  :  Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya.

ORDER NO.  15

DATE  : 11-01-2012.

          Put briefly the fact of the case is that the complainant with intention of purchase a residential flat in the A Schedule property ( Flat 1A Noor Manjil measuring 600 sq. ft. ) of the O.P. entered into an agreement on 12-06-2003 with the developer / proprietor of Techno Construction Asim Roy ( since deceased ) as empowered by O.P. no. 3 the attorney of the rest of the o.ps., at a price of Rs. 3,70,000/- and handed over a cheque being no. 173361 dated 04-06-2003 for Rs. 80,000/- as advance and two post dated cheques being nos. 175591 and 175592 dated 15-09-2003 for Rs. 75,000/- with agreement to pay further sum of Rs. 75,000/- at the time  of roof casting and Rs. 1,00,000/-  during  finishing of the floor and wall and rest to be paid before taking over possession, having been convinced by the deed of agreement dated 13-05-2003 and the general power of attorney dated 25-11-2003 confirmed by the o.ps.  In the mean time possession of the said flat was made over to the complainant on 26-03-2004 with a certificate of possession to that effect. Since then the complainant has been in possession and paid Rs. 4,00,000/- in favour of Asim Roy, the developer. Meanwhile the developer Asim Roy expired in the month of June, 2007 leaving the complainant to utter frustration with respect to the execution and registration of the deed. Though the present o.ps. are not disturbing the complainant with respect to the peaceful possession, all  his prayers for causing Execution and the registration of the deed went unheeded and this is genesis of this case.

          Heard the ld. Lawyer for the complainant. Perused the documents namely the agreement for sale dated 12-06-2003. the copy of the agreement between the owners and the developer dated 13-05-2003, original money receipts, the original certificate dated 26-03-2004 with respect to  delivery of possession, photo copies of the dakhilas etc.

          In view of the unchallenged documents we are of the view that the o.ps. have been deliberately neglecting the execution process causing agony and harassment to the complainant. We are further of the opinion that by not executing the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant they have caused deficiency in service as propounded in the statute. This is a fit case for decree in favour of the complainant.

          Hence,

                             O   R   D   E   R   E   D     

          That the H.D.F. case no. 13 of 2011 be allowed ex parte against all the o.ps. with costs.

          That the o.ps. be directed to execute the deed of sale in favour of the complainant with respect to the flat mentioned in the Schedule ‘A’ of the petition within 30 days from the date of this order.

          That the complainant be further entitled compensation of  Rs. 40,000/- for the agony and harassment suffered by the complainant and a litigation cost of Rs. 4,000/-.

          That the o.ps. do pay a total sum of Rs. 44,000/- ( Rs. 40,000 + 4,000 ) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order failing  the complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution.

          Supply the copy of this order to the parties, as per rule.