DATE OF FILING                    :     11-09-2013.

DATE OF S/R                            :      31-03-2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     25-09-2014.

1.      Subrata Bhakta,

son of Sri Mrinal Kanti Bhakta as constituted

attorney for self and the complainant nos.

2 to 16.

2.      Ganesh Mundra,

son of late Puroshottam Mudhra,

3.      Poonam Sharma,

wife of  Dharmendra Sharma,

4.      Nayansooraj Devi,

wife of  Premprosad,

5.      Ravi Kant Kumar  Roy,

son of  Sri Saryog  Roy,

6.      Arnab  Chatterjee,

son of  Sri Ashok  Kumar  Biswas,

7.      Anjan  Chatterjee,

son of Sri  Anuj Kumar Chatterjee,

8.      Amitava  Chatterjee,

son of late Loken Chatterjee,

9.      Monoj Bepari,

son of late Mukundalal Bepari,

10.  Sumanta  Dutta,

son of late Subodh Kumar  Dutta,

11.  Murari Lal,

12.  Saroj Roy,

13.  Mina Das,

14.  Birendranath  Chakraborty,

son of late  Rupendranath  Chakraborty,

15.  Mohesh  Choudhury,

son of Ramkrishna Choudhury,

16.  Santoshi Devi,

son of late Omprakash Nayek,

all are residing at Bally Sapuipara, P.O. Sapuipara, P.S. Bally,

District – Howrah. --------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANTS.

-          Versus   -

The names of  opposite party nos. 1 to 10

were expunged as per prayer of the complainants vide order no. 12

dated 02-07-2014. .

11.       Rabjit Constructin,

            being represented by its

proprietor Sri Tarak Pal,

having its office at Sapuipara ( Belur ), P.N. Colony,

P.O. Sapuipara, P.S. Bally,

District -   Howrah.

12.       Sri Tarak Pal,

Son of late Netai  Chandra Pal,

Residing at  Sapuipara ( Belur ),

P.N. Colony, P.O. Sapuipara, P.S. Bally,

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 complaint  was filed by complainants U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986

wherein the complainants  have  prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to make arrangement for separate electric meter to the flats of each complainants or to refund Rs.20,000/- including interest to each of the complainants and to complete the pending works and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/- together with litigation costs of Rs. 25,000/- as the o.ps. in spite of receiving the full amount did not install electric meters  to the flats of the complainants in violation of the deed of conveyance.

2.               The o.p. nos. 11 & 12 contested the complaint and filed written version wherein the material allegations made in the complaint has been denied and it has been contended interalia that the agreement stipulates that the complainants were required to pay Rs. 20,000/- extra for installation of the meters, that no such amount was paid by the complainants in violation of the agreement ; that no work is pending ; that the possession has already been delivered and the deed was executed. So the complaint should be dismissed.

3.               The names of o.p. nos. 1 to 10 were expunged as per prayer of the complainants.

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 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 suit flats after execution of the deed of sale. The bone of contention is the installation of the new electric meters in the names of each complainants. On scrutiny of the case record it appears that the o.p. Tarak Pal in spite of receiving the extra  charges for installation of electricity adopted a clever means to hoodwink the  Forum. He issued receipt to some of the complainants for the said purpose and did not issue the same to others. It is altogether uncommon that the promoter shall deliver flats without electricity. Taking the opportunity of the simplicity of the complainant, the o.p. made attempt to fleece extra money from them in garb of the terms of the deed of agreement.

           We are, therefore, of the view that this is a fit case where the prayer 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. 317  of 2013 ( HDF 317 of 2013 )  be  and the same is allowed on contest as against the o.p. nos. 11 & 12 with costs.

      The o.p. Tarak Pal be directed to make arrangement for separate electric meter for each of the complainants within 30 days from the date of this order or to refund Rs. 20,000/- each to the complainants within 30 days  from the date of this order.

      The o.p., Tarak Pal do pay sum of Rs. 30,000/- each to the complainants for causing mental pain and prolonged harassment together with litigation costs of Rs. 5,000/- each.

      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.