In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 207 / 2010.
1) Bindhyachal Gupta,
6, Sildarpara, 2nd Lane, Kolkata-700007. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) Smt. Radha Saha,
72, Nandi Bagan Lane. Salkia, Howrah.
2) Ashoke Sonkar,
12, Jadulal Mullick Road, Kolkata-700006. ---------- Opposite Partiesp
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. A. B. Chakraborty, Member
Order No. 14 Dated 22/02/2012.
The petition of complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 has been filed by complainant Bindhyachal Gupta against the o.ps. Smt. Radha Saha and another. The case of the complainant in short is that o.p. no.1 is the 1/4th owner of the building in question and the said property was purchased by Smt. Lipika Saha, Satyavas Roy, Smt. Sarmista Roy (Saha), Kashinath Saha and Nanda Kisore Saha the predecessor in interest of o.p. no.1 by virtue of a registered deed bearing no.14894, 14892,14893 and 3444 on 24.3.1985. Further case of the complainant is that Nanda Kisore died intestate on 17.11989 leaving behind his mother Smt. Saraswati Saha and his sister Radha Saha i.e. o.p. no.1 and the said Saraswati, mother of o.p. no.1 died on 24.9.05 leaving her only heir i.e. o.p. no.1. As such, o.p. no.1 is the 1/4th owner of the property in question. O.p. no.1 executed a general power of attorney in favour of o.p. no.2 on 12.8.09 being deed no.1295 of 2009 which was registered before the ADSR, Alipore and the said power of attorney holder i.e. o.p. no.2 executed an agreement for sale in respect of 1/4th share of the property in question at a consideration of Rs.8 lakhs upon which o.p. no.2 received a sum of Rs.7 lakhs from the complainants as earnest money. Complainant on several occasions requested the deed of sale in favour of the complainants after receiving balance amount of Rs.1 lakh, but o.p. no.2 refused to do so. Hence the instant case lodged by the complainant with a prayer contained in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint.
O.ps. did not appear in this case by filing w/v. Accordingly, matter was heard ex parte.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of complaint as well as evidence and documents in particular and on perusal of the same we find that the evidence of the complainant as remained unchallenged the testimony since o.ps. did not come forward to contradict the evidence of the complainant. Therefore, we hold that the o.ps. had clear deficiency being a service provider to its consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief as prayed for.
Hence, ordered,
That the petition of complaint is allowed ex parte with cost against the o.ps. O.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to get the scheduled property registered after accepting the balance amount of Rs.1 lakh from the complainant and are further directed not to transfer the said property to anybody and/or inducting any tenant in t he scheduled property. O.ps. are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for harassment and mental and litigation cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization. Complainant is directed to pay the balance amount of Rs.1 lakh on the date of registration and also complainant is required to bear all the expenses towards registration of the deed in question. O.ps. are directed to comply the order within 45 days from the date of communication of this order i.d. penalty @ Rs.50/- (Rupees fifty) only per day shall be payable by the o.ps. till the date of registration.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties.
_____sd-_____ _______sd-_______
MEMBER PRESIDENT
