Sri Ravi Ranjan Kr. Singh,

son of Upendra Nath Singh,

residing at 18/1F, Hari Charan Banerjee Street,

Khamarpara, P.O. Belurmath, P.S. Bally,

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

-          Versus   -

Smt. Rina Pandey,

wife of Sri Suresh Pandey,

residing at 22, Krishna Chatterjee Lane,

P.S. Bally, District –Howrah,

PIN  – 711201.-------------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.

                                                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.p. to execute and register the sale deed in respect of the flat as mentioned in the schedule and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs for mental pain and agony and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs as the O.P. in spite of the agreement dated 21-07-2009 and after receiving Rs. 1 lac as part payment of the total consideration money of Rs. 4,60,000/- did not execute and register the deed of conveyance with respect to the flat measuring 800 sq. ft. on the 3^rd floor at 15, Hari Charan Banerjee Street, P.S. Bally, Howrah.

2.                  The o.p. in her  written version that the instant complaint cannot be entertained

as there occurred no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. as the complainant never paid the full consideration money; that the case is barred by limitation; that the complainant has no come before this Forum in clean hands. So the complaint should be dismissed.

3.         Upon pleadings of both parties three  points arose for determination :

i)                    Whether the complaint is maintainable ?

ii)                  Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  ?

iii)                Whether the complainant is   entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

POINT No. 1

4.      Though the agreement was done on 21-07-2009, the O.P. was sent a letter on 08-

03-2013 wherein she was requested to fulfill the agreement. Naturally the question of maintainability on the point of limitation does not stand at all. The complaint is quite maintainable.

POINT NOS. 2 & 3  :

5.      Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. It is not disputed that the

O.P. did not receive Rs. 1 lac as consideration money out of the total of Rs. 4,60,000/-. Time and again the O.P. was approached by the complainant but the matter was shelved on the ground of nondisplacement of some tenants in the premises. It is now learnt that the construction work is on progress. The O.P. cannot have any respite from the rigours of law as well as from the stipulations of the agreement. The complainant is willing and ready to pay the balance amount for fulfillment of the agreement. The argument put forward on behalf of the O.P. that no deficiency in service occurred as the full payment was not done cannot stand at all as the O.P. suspended the work of construction for a considerable period of time. Therefore, in our considered opinion this 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.  117 of 2013 ( HDF  117 of 2013 )  be  allowed on contest with  costs  against  the O.P. 

      The O.P. be directed to execute and register the flat as mentioned in the schedule in favour of the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order after receiving the rest consideration money from the complainant.

      No order as to the compensation as prayed for.

      The complainant is entitled to a litigation costs of Rs. 5,000/- from the O.P.    

      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  )                                               (    T.K. Bhattacharya  )

  President,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                                   President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.

 (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                              (  P. K. Chatterjee )

 Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                                       Member,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.