1.      Sri Pradip Mukherjee, son of late Prabitra Ranjan Mukherjee,

2.      Smt. Mitali Mukherjee, wife of Sri Pradip Mukherjee,

3.      Ashim Manna, son of late Lal Mohan Manna,

4.      Gopal Mondal, son of late Ganga Ram Mondal,

5.      Debasis Banerjee, son of Debidas Banerjee,

6.      Subir Acharjee, son of Dulai Chandra Acharjee,

7.      Smt. Bithi Acharjee, wife of Subir Acharjee,

8.      Suman Sarkar, son of Sasanka Sekhar Sarkar,

9.      Ujjwal Banerjee, son of late Amal Kumar Banerjee,

10.  Smt. Ananya Banerjee, wife of Ujjwal Banerjee,

11.  Swapna Ojha, daughter of Balaram Ojha,

12.  Rina Ojha, d/o, Balaram Ojha,

13.  Banhee Ash, wife of Bhaskar Ash,

14.  Nagendra Mishra, son of Laxmi Sankar Mishra,

15.  Dipaak Seal, son of late Nibaran Chandra Seal,

16.  Nirmal Bera, son of late Ratikanta Bera,

17.  Sukanta Ghosh, s/o late Mohini Mohan Ghosh,

18.  Smt. Anita Ghosh, wife of Sukanta Ghsoh,

19.   Abhijit Mukherjee, son of Rabindra Nath Mukherjee,

20.  Tapan Banerjee, son of late  Dulal Chand Banerjee,

21.  Tapan Kumar Bagdi, son of late Dhananjoy Bagdi,

22.  Sangita Roy, wife of Soumen  Roy,

23.  Partha Bhattacharya, son of Dhiraj Bhattacharya.

all are residing at 4/A, Padma Babu Road, P.O. & P.S. Bally, District – Howrah.---------------------------- COMPLAINANTS.

-          Versus   -

1.      Smt. Jally Hazra,

wife of late Rabindranath Hazra,

2.      Smt. Rita Das,

wife of Sri Ranjan Das,

both are residing at 19l, Jagadish Bose Sarani, Nischinda  Ghoshpara, P.O.  hoshpara, P.S. Bally, District – Howrah, PIN  – 711227.

3.      Sri Ratikanta Hazra,

son of late Ramani Mohan Hazra,

4.      Sri Pratap Kumar Hazra,

son of late Ramani Mohan Hazra,

nos. 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  Chairman,

Bally Municipality,

384, G.T.  Road, Bally, District – Howrah, PIN – 711201.-----------------------------------------------------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 settle the claim of Rs. 2,94,477/- raised by Bally Municipality, O.P. no. 7, between the O.P. nos. 1 to 6 ; direction upon the O.P.  no. 7 to issue the mutation certificate with respect to the respective flats ; direction upon the rest of the O.Ps. to complete the pending work and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/- for mental pain and agony together with the litigation costs as the O.P. nos. 1 to 6 did not settle the aforesaid claim standing as a hurdle in issuance of the mutation certificate.

2.                  The o.p. no. 7, Bally Municipality in their written version stated interalia that

O.P. nos. 1 to 4 are liable for payment of the property tax and they are the consumer in the eye of the municipality ; they are paying tax as per assessment of the order 2003-04 ; that without obtaining the completion certificate the complainant cannot pray for the mutation ; that no occupancy certificate was issued by the municipality during the transfer ; that the O.Ps. got sanctioned plan for G + 4 building but in contravention of the rules and plan they have constructed G + 5 building and as such one floor is totally  unauthorized ; that they have also made number of deviation to the plan.   

3.                  The O.P. nos. 1 to 4 in their separate written version admitted the full

payment of the complainant for respective flats ; that they nothing to do in respect of the penalty and fine imposed by the O.P. no. 7 ; that they have no liability to submit drawing of completion plan; that they are suffering very much for the activity of the O.P. nos. 5 & 6; that they took the entire consideration money from the complainant ; that for lack of proper information from the owners O.P. no. 7, Bally  Municipality, is not in a possession to assess the actual payment.

4.                  Notices were served upon O.P. nos. 5 &b 6 but the A/D did not return to this

office. Be it mentioned that notices were sent to those O.Ps. twice. The envelop returned with the postal endorsement ‘left’ and ‘unclaimed’. Accordingly the matter was heard ex parte against them. 

3.         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 complainants are  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

4.      Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. Admittedly the

complainants are in possession of the respective flats ; admittedly the O.Ps. did not submit any drawing of completion plan before the Bally Municipality ( O.P. no. 7 ); admittedly the complainants had to pay Rs. 20,000/- for drawing of completion plan to S. Pal and Associates. If the O.P. no. 7 demands Rs. 2,94,477/- from the rest of the O.Ps., we trace no arbitrariness on the part of the Bally Municipality as there is gross violation of the sanction plan. The O.P. nos. 5 & 6 in deviation of the plan constructed an extra floor i.e., G+5  though the plan was sanctioned for G+4. But we are concerned over the ultimate plight of the complainants for non issuance of the mutation certificate. Since the o.ps. after receiving the full amount delivered possession of the respective flats, though incomplete to some extent, they have no way escape from the rigours of law. Unless the names of the complainants are mutated, the valid ownership of the respective flats cannot be obtained. In the circumstances, we are of the view that this is a fit case where the prayers of the complainants shall be allowed. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.  

      Hence,                             

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 67 of 2013 ( HDF  67 of 2013 )  be  allowed on contest with  costs  against  the O.P. nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and without costs against O.P. no. 7 and ex parte with costs against O.P. nos. 5 & 6.   

      The O.P. no. 7  be directed to issue mutation certificate in favour of the complainants after settling the claim of Rs.2,94,477/- with the rest of the O.Ps. within 30 days from the date of this order.

      The o.p. nos. 1 to 6 be jointly and severally directed to pay  a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to the complainants for causing mental pain, agony  and prolonged harassment together with litigation costs of Rs. 10,000/- within one month from the date of this order.

      The complainants are 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.