Dharmendra Kumar Singh,

son of late Parmatma Nand Singh,

residing at 4/A, Padma Babu  Road,

P.O. & P.S. Bally,

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

-          Versus   -

1.      Smt. Jally Hazra,

wife of late Rabindranath Hazra,

2.      Smt.  Rita Das,

wife of Sri Ranjan  Das,

both are residing at 19, Jagadish Bose Sarani,

Nichinda, Ghoshpara, P.O.  Ghoshpara,

P.S. Bally, District -  Howrah,

PIN  – 711 227.

3.      Sri Ratikanta Hazra,

son of late Ramani Mohan Hazra,

4.      Sri Pratap Kumar Hazra,

son of late Ramani Mohan Hazra,

No. 3 & 4 residing at  4/A, Padma Babu Road,

P.O. & P.S. Bally, District – Howrah,

PIN – 711201.

5.      Sangar Space,

represented by its proprietor

Mr. Rohit Singh,

having its office at

417, G.T. Road ( North ), P.O. Salkia,

P.S. Golabari, District – Howrah,

PIN – 711106.

6.      Sri Rohit  Singh,

son of Sri Tapeswar  Singh,

residing at 417,  G.T. Road ( North ), P.O. Salkia,

P.S.  Golabari, District – Howrah,

PIN – 711106.

7.      The Branch Manager,

Indian Overseas Bank,

Dharmotola  Street Branch.-------------------------------------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 has  prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to execute and register the proper sale deed with respect to the suit flat and to pay compensation of Rs. 7 lakhs for causing mental pain and harassment together with litigation costs of  Rs. 20,000/- as the o.ps. in spite of repeated requests did not execute the sale deed.  

2.                  After sufficient opportunities the o.ps. did not file the written version. So the

case was heard ex parte.

3.   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. Admittedly entire consideration money has been paid and the complainant is in possession of the flat in question.  The o.ps. did not act upon the repeated requests for causing execution and registration of the deed of conveyance. Therefore, it is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.

      Hence,                             

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 163  of 2013 ( HDF 163 of 2013 )  be  and the same is allowed ex parte  with  costs  against  the O.P. nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and without costs against o.p. nos. 5, 6 and 7.   

      The O.Ps. be directed to execute and register proper sale with respect to the plaint schedule flat within 30 days from the date of this order.    

      The o.p. nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 do pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- ( Rupees Fifty thousand ) to the complainant jointly and severally for causing prolonged harassment and a 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.