In  the  Court  of  the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.

CDF/Unit-I/Case No.   137 / 2006.

1)                   Yusuf Khan,

100/1, Kareya Road, Kolkata-700019.                                                     ---------- Complainant

---Versus---

1)                   Nurul Huda Layek,

100/1, Kareya Road (Fourth Floor), Kolkata-700019.

2)                   Sisir Kumar Das,

16, Bagmari Lane, C.I.T. Building, Flat no.67,

Block-VII, P.S. Maniktala, Kolkata.                                                         ---------- Opposite Parties

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.

                        Smt. Jhumki Saha, Member.

                        Dr. A. B. Chakraborty, Member

Order No.   5 2    Dated  3 0 / 0 3 / 2 0 1 2 .

The petition of complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 has been filed by Yusuf Khan against o.ps. for registration of his flat and other reliefs.

Fact of the case, in brief, is that o.p. no.2 executed a development agreement with o.p. no.1 on 29.12.1997 for the purpose of construction of flat in the premises at 100/1 Kareya Road, Kolkata-19 General Power of Attorney was executed in favour of the o.p. no.2 by o.p. no.1 on 1.1.1999.

Complainant entered into an agreement for sale on 6.6.1999 for purchase of a flat measuring more or less 1000 sq.ft. together with right to use common share and common facilities thereto for a consideration of Rs.14,50,000/- (annex-A). In different phases the complainant paid Rs.18,50,000/- on 25.1.02 possession of the flat measuring 1050 sq.ft. was given to the complainant. Complainant thereafter made several request to the o.p. no.2 for execution and registration of the deed of conveyance but the o.ps. turned a deep ear. Advocate’s notice was served to the o.ps. but no action was taken on the part of the o.ps.

But on 24.10.05 the complainant received a demand notice from the o.ps’ side for payment of an additional amount of Rs.7,23,000/- on account of extra work, setting up of bok grills, lift charges and for super built area and Rs.5,00,000/- for two car parking spaces etc. But the complainant agitated that the further claim of the o.p. no.2 is not justified save and except the cost of car parking space and complainant claimed that he paid excess amount of Rs.2.50 lakhs over and above the terms of agreement. The execution and registration of the deed of conveyance is still waiting. Hence the case.

O.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case.

Decision with reasons:

We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It is the case of complainant that complainant made payment to o.ps. a sum of Rs.18,50,000/- in various phases vide para 11 of the petition of complaint. But o.ps. in their w/v vide para 13 denied the receipt of Rs.18,50,000/- by cheque and cash by complainant to them. It is admitted position that complainant is in the possession of the flat in question. O.ps. also denied in their w/v that complain ant did not pay Rs.14,50,000/-. O.ps. in their letter dt.24.10.05 demanded a sum of Rs.7,23,000/- on various items wherein no portion of the cost of the flat was incorporated, so it is presumed that and as well as implied meaning thereby admission of o.ps. that they had actually received Rs.14,50,000/- from the complainant towards the cost of the flat in question. Complainant has made averment that out of Rs.18,50,000/- he paid Rs.1,50,000/- towards cost of car parking and in agreement there was no terms for car parking and as per averment of complainant, complainant made payment of Rs.14,50,000/- for the cost of the flat and Rs.4 lakhs for car parking cost and for extra works and we do not find any earthly reason to disbelieve this position. Complainant in the course of argument admitted that he is agreeable to make payment of extra amount of Rs.1,35,000/- apart from Rs.18,50,000/-. The question whether the agreement was registered or not does not arise in the summary trial particularly when o.p. acted upon the said agreement. In view of the above position and on perusal of the entire materials on record minutely we are of the opinion that the o.ps. had some amount of deficiency on their part being service provider to their consumer / complainant.

Hence, ordered,

That the petition of complaint is allowed on contest in part against the o.p. no.2 with cost and without cost against o.p. no.1. O.ps. are jointly and severally directed to register and execute the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant in respect of the flat in question and car parking space on receipt of sum of Rs.1,35,000/- (Rupees one lakh thirty five thousand) only from the complainant on the date of registration and the registration cost and allied charges shall have to be borne by the complainant. O.p. no.2 is directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only to the complainant for his harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only. Parties to this case are hereby directed to comply the aforesaid order strictly within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. law will take its own course.

Supply certified copy of this order to the parties.

   ____Sd-____                     ______Sd-_____                  _____Sd-_____

     MEMBER                            MEMBER                        PRESIDENT