Bibekananda Pramanik, President - This Consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act has been filed by Sri Dhananjay Mitra against the above named opposite parties alleging deficiency in service on their part.
Complainant’s case, in brief, as follows:-
Opposite parties are the joint owner of the case property as mentioned in Schedule “A” of the petition of complaint and they entered into a Development Agreement on 12.08.2009 with one M/S Maa Tara Construction. The complainant was a monthly tenant in respect of a room measuring 1.38 Sq.ft in Schedule “A” of the petition of complaint. By virtue of said agreement for development, the developer shifted the complainant to another place after execution of an agreement on 03.11.2009 to the effect that the complainant shall purchase the said room measuring about 1.38 sq.ft and shall get the possession of the same within one year. The said room has been described in the schedule “B” of the complaint. After completion of new building in the said property and after taking consideration money of Rs. 48,000/- the opposite parties handed over possession to the complainant in his said allotted room on the ground floor of that building. After getting possession of that room on 24.04.2018 the complainant requested the opposite parties to get registration of that room in his favour but in spite of that request and demand notice send by the complainant, the opposite parties neglected to execute the sale deed in respect of that room as described in schedule “B” of the petition of complaint in favour of the complainant. Hence the complaint praying for directing the opposite parties to execute and register the sale deed in respect of the room as described in schedule “B” of the petition of complaint in favour of the complainant and for other reliefs including award of compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 30,000/-.
All the O.ps. were duly served with notice of this case but they did not appear to contest this case. Hence the exparte hearing.
POINT FOR DECISION
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs, as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
To prove his case, the complainant-Dhananjay Mitra has tendered his written examination-in-chief supported by affidavit in evidence and he has also filed some documents in support of his case.
On perusal of the written examination-in-chief supported by affidavit of the complainant as well as from the documents filed by him, we find that the complainant has fully corroborated his case of the petition of complaint. He has stated on oath by swearing an affidavit that the opposite parties by executing an agreement on 03.11.2009 agreed that within 1 year from the date of possession of their developed house property they will give possession of “B” schedule property to the complainant and subsequently the complainant was also given possession of the said “B” schedule property. He has further stated on oath that in spite of such agreement and repeated requests, the opposite parties did not execute the sale deed in respect of that room, as described in schedule “B” of the petition of complaint although they had received the consideration money of such sale of Rs. 48,000/- from the complainant. So in view of the said evidence, both oral and documentary, remaining unchallenged, it is held that the complainant’s case is prove and he is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for. Hence, it is,
O R D E R E D
that the complaint case no. 361/2017 is allowed exparte with cost against all the O.ps. O.ps. are directed to execute a registered deed of sale in respect of “B” schedule room in favour of the complainant within 2 (two) months from the date of this order. They are further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within 2 months from this date of order.
Let a plain copy of this order be given to the complainant free of cost.
Dictated & corrected by me.
( Bibekananda Pramanik )
President, D.C.D.R.F.,
Howrah.
