Judgement : Dr.30.5.2016
This is a complaint made by Colonel Ashis Kr. Mandal, son of late A.C. Mandal and Suchita Mandal, wife of Colonel Ashis Kr. Mandal against Siddheswari Construction a proprietorship firm represented by Sri Shyamal Kr. Maity, having its office at 19/1, K.M.Naskar Road, Kolkata-700 040 under Tollygunge Police Station, praying for direction upon the opposite party to execute a deed of conveyance of the property mentioned in the schedule and for cost expenses to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/-.
Facts in brief are that Complainant No.1 is a retired defence officer and senior citizen. Complainant No.2 is a housewife aged about 65 years.
OP is a developer and agreement for sale was executed between Complainant and opposite party on 19th August,2000. In terms of the said agreement Complainant agreed to purchase a flat with garage space at a total consideration of Rs.10,92,500/-. At the time of agreement, Complainant paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and rest of the money was paid thereafter.
OP after receiving the entire amount agreed to execute a deed of sale. But despite the agreement OP did not execute the deed of conveyance in favour of the Complainant within the stipulated time. Complainant further paid sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 14.3.2014 for additional charges of the said flat as per request of OP. OP handed-over the possession of the flat in favour of the Complainants. Complainants are ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement. OP did not make a conveyance deed in favour of the Complainants. So, Complainants issued a notice on 4.2.2013 through Advocate.
On the basis of above facts the complaint was admitted and notices were served upon the opposite party. But, despite the service of notice OP did not appear. So, the case is heard ex-parte.
Decision with reasons.
Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief and also filed written argument.
Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
On perusal of the affidavit-in-chief, it appears that Complainant No.1 has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint. Further, on perusal of the Xerox copies of the agreement of sale it appears that OP Siddheswari Construction entered into an agreement with Complainant, but did not comply the terms of the agreement, so far as the registration of the sale deed in favour of the Complainants is concerned. OP handed-over the possession to the Complainants as mentioned in the complaint petition. So, it appears that OP is duty bound to make the sale deed in favour of the Complainants So far as the claim of compensation to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- is concerned, in our view it would be burdensome for the opposite party. However, in our view if compensation with litigation cost to the tune of Rs.30,000/- is allowed justice would be served.
Hence
O R D E R E D
CC/112/2016 and the same is allowed ex-parte in part. OP is directed to make a registered sale deed in favour of the Complainants of the schedule mentioned flat within two months of this order. In addition, OP is directed to pay Rs.30,000/- in total to the Complainants within this period, in default, this amount shall carry an interest of 15% per annum after two months of this order till realisation.
Hence, CC/112/2016 stands disposed.
