DATE OF FILING : 03-07-2013. DATE OF S/R : 25-07-2013. DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 21-03-2014. Sri Bablu Samanta, son of Gunadhar Samanta, residing at Sonamui, Amta, P.S. Amta, District – Howrah, PIN – 711401, and also carrying a business under the name and style as B and V Industries, at 6/4, Kali Prasad Chakraborty Lane, P.O. Kadamtala, P.S. Bantra, District – Howrah, PIN – 71101.-------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT. - Versus - 1. Smt. Chabi Rani Ghosh, wife of late Indrajit Ghosh. 2. Sri Indranil Ghosh, son of late Indrajit Ghosh, P.S. Bantra, District – Howrah, PIN – 711101, presently residing at Lions Apartment,Flat no. B/4, 3rd floor, 174/5, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose Road, P.S. Jadavpur, Kolkata – 700040. 3. M/S. Utthan, a proprietorship concern represented by its sole proprietor Sri Dipankar Majhi, having its business office at 2/3, Kedarnath Mukherjee Lane, P.S. Bantra, District - Howrah, PIN – 711101. 4. Sri Dipankar Majhi, son of Sri Niranjan Majhi, residing at 12, Panchanan Chatterjee Lane, P.S. Bantra, District – Howrah, PIN – 711101.------------------------------------------------------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 Bablu Samanta has prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to refund the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- together with interest since 30-06-2011 and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 6 lakhs and litigation costs of Rs. 25,000/- as the o.ps. in spite of the agreement dated 30-06-2011 for sale of the flat measuring 500 sq. ft. and payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- did not deliver the same and not to speak of execution of the deed of sale 2. The o.ps. in the written version contended interalia that the agreement is not binding upon the o.p. no. 1 & 2 as the o.p. no. 3 did not pay anything to the o.ps. 3. The o.p. nos. 3 & 4 did not file any written version though power was filed on their behalf. So the matter was heard ex parte against them. 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. From the enclosures it is palpable that o.p. no. 4 received Rs. 1,50,000/- towards advance money out of the total agreed amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- on 30-06-2011 and 23-03-2012. But on repeated requests from the complainant the o.ps. are turning deaf ear nor delivered the possession of the flat nor did execute the sale deed. In such circumstances we have no other alternative than to allow the prayer of the complainant for refund of the money received by the o.p. no. 4 towards advance. Both the points are accordingly disposed of. Hence, O R D E R E D That the C. C. Case No. 217 of 2013 ( HDF 217 of 2013 ) be and the same is allowed ex parte with costs against o.p. nos. 3 & 4 and dismissed on contest but without costs against o.p. nos. 1 & 2. The O.P. nos. 3 & 4 jointly and severally be directed to refund of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order together with interest @ 10% p.a. since 30-06-2011 till full satisfaction. The O.P. nos. 3 & 4 jointly and severally be further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant for causing mental pain, prolonged harassment and utter frustration and to pay further litigation costs of Rs. 5,000/-. 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 ) President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. | 
