DATE OF FILING                    :     20-07-2012.

DATE OF S/R                            :      06-09-2012

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     28-09-2012.

Sri Ashoke Kumar Majhi,

son of late Madan Mohon Majhi,

residing at 11, Old Bibi Tola Lane, P.O. & P.S. Shibpur,

District –Howrah.---------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.         Smt. Chhaya Nath,    

            wife of Sri Snehangshu Nath.

2.         Sri Snehangshu Nath,

            son of Sri Snehangshu Nath.

            both o.p. nos. 1 & 2 residing at

            6, Abinash Banerjee Lane, P.O. & P.S. Shibpur,

            District – Howrah.

3.         Smt. Kalpana Debnath,

            wife of Sri Sudeb Debnath,

            residing at 239/1, G.T. Road, P.S. Shibpur,

            District – Howrah.

4.         Md. Abdul Hakim,

            son of Abdul Bhola,

            residing at 8, Seikhpara Lane, P.O. Santragachi,

            P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah. --------------------------------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,

as amended against the O.Ps.  alleging deficiency in service U/S 2( 1 )( g ),  2( 1 )( o ) of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant, Ashoke Kr. Majhi  has prayed for direction upon the O.P. no. 4  to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the suit flat measuring 500 sq. ft. on the 1^st floor at 6, Abinash Banerjee Lane, P.S. Shibpur, Howrah, and for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- together with litigation costs as the o.p. in spite of receiving part payment to the tune of Rs. 1,68,000/- out of total consideration money of Rs. 9,25,000/- in terms of the agreement dated  17-03-2012, ultimately refused to act upon the agreement and cancelled the same unilaterally by sending advocate’s letter on 28-05-2012. Hence the case. 

2.         Prior notices were served upon the o.ps. But they did not appear before the Forum, nor did they file any written version. Hence the complaint was heard ex parte.

3.         Upon pleading  of complainant 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      :

4.         Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. From the enclosures it appears that the complainant paid a total amount of Rs. 1,68,000/- out of the agreed amount of Rs. 9,25,000/-.  The agreement was enacted on 17^th March, 2012. The ld. Advocate for the o.p. no. 4 sent a letter on 28-05-2012 stating that the agreement subsisted only for two months. As the complainant failed to purchase the flat within two months the agreement stands cancelled. The complainant was to receive back the amount deposited after deduction of 10% of the advance money. In para 6 of the agreement there is the stipulation of two months from the date of execution of the agreement. But the fact remains that the agreement was thoroughly an unilateral one and two month’s time was too short for the complainant to collect the requisite money through bank. It is the positive case of the complainant that he applied for the bank loan from the bank and for sanction  of such loan requisite papers like deed, khatian etc. were required to be supplied by the o.p. no. 4. As all the attempts of the complainant to procure the documents went in vain and the o.p. did not supply the same, we are of the view that the o.p. no. 4 was determined to deprive the complainant from the flat as per agreement. Knowing fully well that the complainant would not be in a position to collect the requisite sum within two months, the o.p. incorporated the terms in para 6 only to hoodwink the complainant and to misappropriate 10% of the advance sum dishonestly. This is obviously unfair trade practice within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The o.p. no. 4 acted illegally in cancelling the deed of agreement unilaterally at his own whims. Therefore, it is a fit case for granting relief.  

      Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

      Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 78 of 2012 ( HDF 78 of 2012 )  be  and the same is allowed ex parte with costs against o.p. no. 4 and dismissed ex parte without cost against the rest.

      The O.P. no. 4,  Md.  Abdul Hakim be  directed to execute and register proper deed of conveyance in respect of the suit flat as mentioned in the schedule after receiving the balance amount i.e. Rs. 7,57,000/- ( Rs. 9,25,000 – Rs. 1,68,000 ) within 60 days from the date of this order.      

      The complainant be directed to pay the outstanding amount as above within 60 days as condition precedent for  execution of the sale deed.

      The o.p. no. 4 be directed to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant for causing mental agony, pain and prolonged harassment.

      The complainant is further entitled to 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.