In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 116 / 2010
1) Sri Goutam Bose,
S/o. Sri Narayan Chandra Bose,
30C, Garcha Ist Lane now known as Dover Place,
Kolkata- 700019 ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) Sri Pradip Kumar Paul,
S/o. Sri Gossai Das Paul,
63/4, Ashutosh Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 25
2) Sri Debi Prosad Chakraborty,
S/o. Late Mohini Mohan Chakraborty,
M-571, Padmanavapur, Bhilai, M.P.
3) Sri Debi Dulal Chakraborty,
S/o. Late Mohini Mohan Chakraborty,
50/N, Garcha Road, Kolkata – 700019
4) Sri Debi Sarbadhikari Chakraborty,
5) Sri Debi Kumar Chakraborty,
6) Sri Debi Madhab Chakraborty,
7) Sri Debi Mohan Chakraborty,
8) Sri Debadideb Chakraborty
4 to 8 all are son of S/o. Late Mohini Mohan Chakraborty,
4 to 8 all of 30C, Garcha First Lane now known as Dover Place, Kolkata – 19.--------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member
Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member
Order No. 27 Dated 28/09/2012.
The petition of complaint has been filed by the complainant Sri Goutam Bose against the o.ps. Sri Pradip Kumar Paul and others. The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant entered into an agreement on 17.05.08. with o.p.1,promoter/developer for a flat with two car parking space at flat no.D,3rd.floor, North Western side having measurement of car parking space 120 sq.ft. in the ground floor at premises no.30C, Garcha 1st Lane, Kolkata-19 and the developer i.e. o.p.1 took the entire consideration money from the complainant inclusive of two car parking space and despite the same op1 has not taken steps for execution of deed of conveyance on the plea that o.p.2 to 8, the land owners except o.p.3 revoked the power of attorney. Hence the instant case filed by the complainant.
O.p.s had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them except o.p 1 and o.p.3. It appears from w/v of o.p.2 to 8 that complainant was never keen to get the registered and it is due to the lapse on the part of the complainant the property in question could not be registered by executing deed of conveyance and on this count o.p.2 to 8 except 3 have prayed for dismissal of the case.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. The admitted position is that the complainant paid the entire consideration amount of the property as per agreement dated 17.05.08. to o.p.1 and further admitted position is that the complainant is in possession of the suit property. O.P.1 & 3 are agreeable to get the property registered in favour of the complainant. It is o.p.1, who received the entire consideration amount for the property in question and he is duty bound to get the property registered.
In view of the findings above and perusal of the entire materials on record we are of the views o.p.s had sufficient deficiency in rendering service being the service provider to their complainant/consumer and complainant is entitled to relief..
Hence, Ordered,
That the case of the complainant is allowed on contest against all the o.p.s with cost against all o.p.s except o.p.3. O.P.1 is strictly directed to get the property registered executing the Deed of Conveyance by o.p.2 to 8 and o.p.1,2,4 to 8 are jointly and/or severally directed to pay compensation of Rs.75,0000/- for mental agony, harassment as well as enhancement of stamp duty and registration fees meanwhile and aforesaid o.p.s are also directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-. All the aforesaid heard passed herein before should be complied within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full and final realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost as per provision of section 21(1) of Consumer Protection Regulation.
