Sashi Prakash Singh,

son of Sri Sachinda Nand Singh,

residing at 193, Girish Ghosh Road, Balurmath,

P.S. Bally, District – Howrah,

PIN – 711202. ------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.      Rakesh Kumar Singh,

son of Sri Paras Nath Singh,

residing at 1/1/1, Srimani Bagan Lane, Salkia,

P.S. Golabari, District – Howrah,

PIN – 711106.

2.      Sri  Ramanand Chowdhury,

son of late Jatadhari Chowdhury,

of 24, Abhoy Guha  Road, P.S. Bally,

District – Howrah,

PIN – 711201.------------------------------------------------------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 execute and register the sale deed in terms of the agreement dated 22-11-2010 and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1 lakh  together with litigation costs as the o.ps. in spite of receiving Rs 4,50,000/- from the complainant refused to accept  the balance amount of Rs. 7,37,500/- and execute and register the deed of conveyance with respect to the schedule flat measuring 950 sq. ft. at Abhoy Guha  Road, P.S. Bally, District – Howrah.

2.                  The o.p. no. 1 in spite of service of notice did not appear and file the written

version. So the case was heard ex parte against O.P. no. 1.

3.                  The O.P. no. 2 in his written version simply denied the material allegations

made in the complaint and contended that the complainant is not entitled to the claim of compensation as prayed for.

4.                  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      :

5.                  Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. The agreement dated

22-11-2010 ( Enclosure A, the money receipt ( Enclosure C ) issued by O.P. no. 2 clearly reveal that there  was an agreement in between the parties for sale of a flat measuring 950 sq. ft. and for the said purpose the O.P. no. 2 to receive Rs. 4,50,000/- as part payment of the total consideration of Rs. 11,87,500/-. In spite of repeated reminders, the O.P. no. 2 turned a deaf ear to the requests of the complainant and in our considered opinion the denial on the part of the O.Ps. amounts to gross deficiency in service. The O.Ps. cannot have any respite from the rigours of law as because the complaint is quite maintainable before this Forum in view of the Section 3 of the C.P. Act, 1986 . It appears that  Rs. 7,37,500/- was remain outstanding. Both the O.Ps. shall be directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance otherwise there shall be gross violation of agreement dated 22-11-2010. We are,  therefore, of the view that the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.

      Hence,                             

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 49 of 2013 ( HDF 49 of 2013 )  be and the same is  allowed on contest with  costs  against  the O.P.  no. 2 and ex parte with costs against O.P. no. 1.

      Both the O.Ps. are directed to execute and register the sale deed with respect to the schedule mentioned property within  30 days from the date of this order after receiving the balance amount of Rs. 7,37,500/- from the complainant.

      The complainant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- from the O.Ps. jointly and severally   within  30 days from the date of this order.

      The complainant is further  entitled to a litigation cost of Rs.  5,000/- from the o.ps.

      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.  

  (    T.K. Bhattacharya  )                                               (    T.K. Bhattacharya  )

  President,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                                   President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.

                                                   (  P. K. Chatterjee )

                                        Member,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.