DATE OF FILING : 22-01-2013.
DATE OF S/R : 18-02-2013.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 13-06-2013.
Smt. Smritikana Mukherjee,
w/o. Rabindra Nath Mukherjee, 9 Ganesh Chatterjee Lane, P.S. Shibpur, District –Howrah, PIN – 711102. ------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. Qazi Mohammod Salim,
son of lt. Qazi Mohammod Samiullah, 5 p.m. Busty Lane, P.S. Sibpur, District – Howrah,PIN – 711102.
2. Nurul Amin,
s/o. lt. Gulam Mohammod
of 3, Baje Sibpur Road, P.S. Sibpur,
District – Howrah.
3. Rupak Mitra,
s/o. lt. Santimoy Mitra
of 9, Ganesh Chatterjee Lane, P.S. Sibpur,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711102.------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986
wherein the complainant has prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to deliver possession of the flat as mentioned in the schedule measuring 200 sq. ft. and to execute and register the sale deed relating to the same and to pay compensation Rs, 2,50,000/-, Rs. 50,000/- as enhanced price for registration and a litigation costs of Rs. 5,000/- as the O.Ps. in spite of the agreement dated 24-09-2010 and receiving Rs. 65,000/- as advance money refused to give possession of the same and execute the deed of conveyance.
2. The o.p.nos. 1 & 2 in their written version contended interalia that the
complainant did not pay the balance amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- within the stipulated period i.e., June, 2011; that the complainant also refused to pay extra cost of Rs. 8,350/- ; that the complainant was a tenant in the said building ; that it is not the duty of the promoter to register the sale deed at his own cost ; that there was no deficiency in service. 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 complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
4. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. The agreement dated 24-
09-2010 unerringly reflects that the O.Ps. agreed to sell the schedule mentioned flat at a consideration of Rs. 2 lacs, out of which Rs. 65,000/- was paid to the O.Ps. Subsequently series of letters were sent to the O.Ps. on behalf of the complainant for delivery of possession and execution of the sale deed. But the O.Ps. did not pay heed to those correspondences which amounts to gross deficiency in service.
In the result, we are of the view that this is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 15 of 2013 ( HDF 15 of 2013 ) be and the same is allowed on contest with costs against the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 and ex parte with costs against O.P. no. 3.
The O.Ps. be directed to deliver the possession of the flat and execute and register the deed of conveyance after receiving the balance amount of Rs. 1,65,000/- from the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.
The complainant be directed to pay the balance amount to the O.Ps. and to pay the registration costs for execution and registration of the deed of conveyance.
The o.p. do also pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental pain and prolonged harassment.
The complainant is entitled to a litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
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 ) ( T.K. Bhattacharya )
President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.
( Jhumki Saha ) ( P. K. Chatterjee )
Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.
