F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  The instant case was filed by complainant, Smt. Krishna Das, U/S 12 of the

C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has  prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to execute and register a proper deed of conveyance in respect of the schedule property after accepting the balance amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1 lac for causing harassment and mental agony together with litigation costs as the O.Ps. in spite of the agreement dated 07-03-2012 for sale of the property at a consideration of  Rs. 5 lacs ( out of which  Rs. 2,70,000/- was received ) did not execute and register the deed of conveyance in spite of repeated requests.

2.                  In spite of several directions the O.Ps. did not file the written version and as

such complaint was heard ex parte against the O.Ps.

3.                  Two points are framed for consideration :

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. Perused the copy of the

agreement and the acknowledgement of the sum of  Rs. 2,70,000/- received from the complainant by the O.Ps. In view of the unchallenged testimonies, this is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed. Question may arise if this is a case of Specific Performance of Contract and therefore not maintainable before this  Forum. In answer to this automated question, we are of the view that the instant case is a clear cut case of a breach of contract arising out of a contract dated 07-03-2012 which is valid, legal and more importantly legally enforceable. A breach of contract itself may result in deficiency in service. The Consumer Protection Act specifically provides for a special remedy for such grievance for compensation. This is in addition to the ordinary remedy available by way of approaching a civil court. The hypothetical contention that the matter is one arising out of the breach of contract and the only remedy available is only by approaching a civil court is not tenable in view of the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission on an identical plea reported in 1991 vol. I CPJ 40.

Therefore, we are of the view that the prayer of the complainant has justification

and as such it requires to be allowed.  

      Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 86 of 2013 ( HDF  86 of 2013 )  be  and the same is allowed ex parte as against the O.Ps. with costs.  

      The O.Ps. be directed to  execute and register a proper deed of conveyance in respect of the suit property as described in the schedule after receiving the balance consideration amount of  Rs. 2,30,000/- within 30 days from the date of this order.

      The o.ps. do further directed to pay a compensation jointly and severally to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant for causing unnecessary harassment and mental pain.

      The complainant is also entitled litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- from the O.Ps.  

      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.