DATE OF FILING                    :     07.05.2014.

DATE OF S/R                            :      15.07.2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     10.02.2015.

Smt. Beauty Samanta,

residing at 723, Sarat Chatterjee Road, P.S. Shibpur,

District Howrah,

PIN 711102. ………………………………………………………….. COMPLAINANT.

• Versus -

   

  1.         Smt. Champak Lata Banerjee,

              wife of late Mrityunjay Banerjee,

   

  2.         Sri  Tushar Kanti Banerjee,

   

  3.         Sri Keshab Kanti Banerjee,

   

  4.         Sri Goutam Banerjee,

              all sons of late Mritunjay Banerjee,

   

  5.         Smt. Shanti @ Rita Banerjee,

   

  6.         Smt. Bandana Banerjee,

   

  7.         Smt. Chinmoyee Banerjee,

              All daughters of late Mrityunjay Banerjee,

   

  8.         Smt. Emili Banerjee,

              wife of Sri Purusattam Banerjee and

              daughter of late Mritunjay Banerjee,

   

  9.         Sri  Gour Banerjee,

              son of late Phanindra Nath Banerjee,

   

  10.       Smt. Rita Banerjee,

              wife of Sri Soumen Banerjee,

   

  11.       Sri Nitun Banerjee,

   

  12.       Sri Soumen Banerjee,

              both sons of late Bimal Banerjee,

   

  13.       Smt. Bharati Banerjee,

              wife of Sri Nitun Banerjee,

   

  14.       Smt. Anjali Banerjee,

              wife of Adhir Banerjee,

   

  15.       Sri Ashim Banerjee,

   

  16.       Sri Amit Banerjee,

              sons of late Adhir Banerjee,

   

  17.       Kumari Aditi Banerjee,

   

  18.       Kumari Aparna Banerjee,

              both daughters  of late Adhir Banerjee,

              residing at 723, Sarat Chatterjee Road, P.S. Shibpur,

              District Howrah,

              PIN 711102.

   

  19.       M/S. Carewell Properties,

              a partnership firm governed by the

              Indian Partnership Act, 1932,

              having its registered office at 254/3/1,

              Panchanantala Road, P.S. & District Howrah,

              PIN 711101, represented by its partners viz.

   

• i Sri Pradip Kumar Singh,

  son of late Narad Singh,

  residing at 254/3/1, Panchanantal  Road,

  P.S. & Howrah, PIN 711101,

ii Sri Ramendra Kumar Barman,

son of Sri Jagadish Prasad Barman,

residing at 254/3/1, Panchanantala Road,

P.S.  &  District Howrah,

PIN 711101…………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P   R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1. Complainant,namely Beauty Samanta,by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. nos. 1 to 19 to deliver possession of the ‘B’ Schedule property  after execution  and registration of the  deed of sale, to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation  for mental pain and agony and costs  along  with other relief or reliefs as the  Forum may deem fit and proper. 

2. Brief fact of the case is that the o.p. nos. 1 to 18, the owners of property,entered into an agreement dated 29^th November, 2004 with the o.p. no. 19, the developer, for development ofthe premises in Schedule ‘A’ as per terms and conditions of the said agreement. The developer, o.p. no. 19, completed the structural foundation but did not complete the building as yet.At the time of execution of the development agreement the o.p. nos. 1 to 18 executed a power of attorney in favour of o.p. no. 19 to proceed with the said work of construction. The o.p. nos. 1 to 18and o.p. no. 19 jointly entered into an agreement for sale dated 26.06.2012 to transfer a flat being no. E-3B in the 3^rd floor of the ‘E’ building measuring 509 sq. ft. including super built area along with all common facilities to the complainant. The price of the said flat as described in the Schedule ‘B’ was settled at Rs. 6,61,700/- @ Rs. 1,300/- per sq. ft. and the complainant paid Rs. 1,50,000/- as earnest money by two A/C payee cheques (i) Rs. 1,00,000/-being no. 023701 dated 04.6.2012 drawn on United Bank of India, Chatterjeehat Branch, and ( ii )Rs. 50,000/-being no. 023718 dated 24.3.2011 drawn on United Bank of India, Chatterjeehat Branch, to o.ps. who accepted the same and issued separate receipts and agreed to deliver possession of the said flat within a specified time but the o.p. failed to deliver the said flatto the complainant under the terms and conditions of the agreement for sale. Complainant sent legal notice dated 17.02.2014 but the o.ps. remained silent.Hence the case.

3. Notices were served.O.p. nos. 1 to 18 neither appeared nor filed any written version. But o.p. no. 19 once appeared but no W/V is filed. Accordingly, case was heard ex parte.

4. Two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

    

   DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

   5. Both the points aretaken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the complaint petition and its Annexures and notes its contents. On perusal of the Annexures we find that O.p. no. 19 received Rs. 1,50,000/- out of the total consideration amount of Rs. 6.61,700/- from the complainant vide Annexure Agreement for sale dated 26.6.2012. O.p. no. 19 received the said amount as the constituted attorney of o.p. nos. 1 to 18. Complainant is also very much willing to pay the rest amount of Rs. 5,11,700/-  and get the deed of conveyance registered in her favour for which she sent a lawyer’s letter dated 17.02.2014. But the o.ps. remained silent which definitely amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps. Moreover, the o.p.nos. 1 to 18  have  not cared to appear before the Forum even after receiving summons. No W/V has been filed by them which clearly shows that they have nothing to put forward in their favour. And the complaint petition remains unchallenged and uncontroverted. O.p. no. 19 once appeared before this Forum and submitted that they have no difficulty to execute the deed of conveyance on receipt of the balance amount from the complainant.  O.ps. have miserably failed   to keep promise which certainly amounts to deficiency in  service coupled with unfair trade practice  on their  part which should not be allowed to be perpetuated for an indefinite period.   And we are of the candid opinion that it is a fit case where the prayers of the complainant  should be allowed. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 273  of 2014 ( HDF  273  of 2014 )  be  allowed ex parte    with  costs  against  the O.Ps.     

      That the  O.Ps. are jointly and severally   directed   to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant within one month from this date i.d., Rs. 50/- per day shall be charged against all the o.ps. till actual registration. Complainant is also directed to pay the balance amount on the date of registration. Complainant is also directed to bear the cost of registration.  

           The complainant do get an award of Rs. 5,000/- as  compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost and o.ps. are directed to pay the same within one month from this order i.d. amount shall carry an interest @ 9% p.a. till actual payment

      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.  

      (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                  

  Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.