DATE OF FILING : 23-08-2013.
DATE OF S/R : 03-10-2013.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 10-04-2014.
Smt. Beauty Das,
daughter of late Chapala Kanta Das,
residing at Panchanantala, Andul, Mouri, P.S. Domjur,
District – Howrah. -------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. Smt. Reba Maity,
wife of Sri Rabindra Nath Maity,
residing at 16, Padmapukur Roychowdhury Lane,
P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah.
2. Sri Ashim Kumar Dutta,
son of late Subhas Chandra Dutta,
residing at Geetanjali Apartment, Chunavati Village Road,
P.S. Sankrail, District – Howrah,
PIN – 9.--------------------------------------------------------------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 deed of conveyance with respect to the ‘B’ schedule flat, compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs and cost of litigation as the o.ps. in violation of the agreement dated 11-05-2007 did not execute and register the deed of conveyance though received Rs. 2,60,000/- out of total consideration of Rs. 6,35,000/-.
2. That the o.p. no. 1 in her written version contended interalia that the o.p. no. 2 manufactured a deed of agreement only to show his client for earning money; that the F.I.R. was lodged against o.p. no. 2 with the local P.S. under appropriate sections of the I.P.C. So the complainant should be dismissed.
3. Summon was properly served upon the o.p. no. 2 but he ultimately did not appear and submit written version.
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 complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
4. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. The complainant in all paid Rs. 2,60,000/- to the o.p. no. 2 out of the total consideration of Rs. 6,35,000/- for purchase of the 850 sq. ft. flat as mentioned in the schedule. The o.p. no. 1 executed a power of attorney in favour of the o.p. no. 2 on 01-07-2004. Whatever be the plea of the o.p. no.1 the power of attorney is irrevocable. So the o.p. no. 2 has no way escape from the deed of agreement dated 11-05-007 executed between the complainant and the o.p. no. 2. The enclosures reveal the payment of Rs. 2,60,000/- to the o.p. no. 2. Therefore, we are of the view that the o.p. no. 2 has adopted unfair trade practice in not executing the proper deed of conveyance. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 296 of 2013 ( HDF 296 of 2013 ) be and the same is allowed on contest against the o.p. no. 1 and ex parte with costs against the o.p. no. 2.
The O.P. no. 2 be directed to execute and register the proper sale deed in favour of the complainant with respect to the schedule mentioned flat within 30 days from the date of this order after receiving the balance amount from the complainant.
The o.p. no. 1 shall be the confirming party to the act of registration of the deed.
The o.p. no. 2 do pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to the complainant as compensation for causing mental pain and prolonged harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs.
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.
