DATE OF FILING : 18-01-2012.
DATE OF S/R : 17-02-2012
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 30-03-2012.
Sri Smiran Adhikary,
son of Sri Bijoy Adhikary,
residing at 12, K.P. Kumar Street, P.S. Bally,
District. Howrah. COMPLAINANT.
Versus -
1. Smt. Srabani Barat,
wife of Sri Sandip Kumar Barat,
resident of 2/2, Dharmatala Road ( South ),
P.O. Belurmath, P.S. Bally,
District. Howrah.
2. M/S. Mahalakshmi Construction,
a proprietorship concern being represented
by its sole proprietor Sri Haran Chandra Nag,
son of late Atul Chandra Nag, having its
office at 222, G.T. Road, Belur, P.O. and P.S. Bally,
District. Howrah,
PIN . 711 202 and also of 9/3, Shibu Chakraborty Lane,
P.S. Bally, District. Howrah. OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
1. Honble President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya.
2. Honble Member : Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. The complaint case ( HDF 7 of 2012 ) was filed by the complainant U/S
12 the C.P. Act, 1986, against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service, wherein the complainant has prayed for direction upon the O.Ps. to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the shop room as mentioned in the schedule and for compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- together with other reliefs.
2. The complainants case stands as follows :
As per the verbal agreement for sale between the parties with respect to the schedule shop room situated at 2/2, Dharmatala Road ( South ), P.O. Belurmath, P.S. Bally, measuring 420 sq. ft. the complainant paid Rs. 4 lacs to the O.P. on different dates towards full and final consideration. But the o.ps. refused to execute the deed on the pretext that the market rate of the same property was much higher and until and unless the outstanding amount which triple to the earlier is not paid up, the question of execution of deed does not arise. The further case is that the O.P. has been leaving no stone turned to oust the complainant from the suit property with the help of mercenary hooligans. Hence the case.
3. The o.ps. in their written version though admitted the receipt of Rs. 4 lacs from the complainant, contended interalia that the actual agreement for sale was for Rs. 12,84,000/- i.e. at Rs. 3,000/- per sq. ft. as the total area is 428 sq. ft. , that Rs. 8,84,000/- remains outstanding, the question of execution of the sale deed does not arise. So the case should be dismissed.
4. Upon pleadings of the parties two points arose for determination :
Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps.
Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for
DECISION WITH REASONS :
5. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. The instant case reminds us the gospel of a ghost without a statue. It is quite unheard of that an agreement for sale for consideration money of nearly 13 lacs stands on verbal agreement and not in black and white. A shop room measuring 420 or 428 sq. ft. in the Belur area shall be valued Rs. 3000/- per sq. ft. in the year 2008 is as bizarre as a cock and bull story. In the year 2009 on 10 September a property comprising Bally Municipal holding no. 2/2, Dharmatala Road ( South ), Ward no. 8, P.S. Bally, measuring 360 sq. ft. was sold at a market price of Rs. 2,52,000/-. This information we collect from the copy of a deed of conveyance dated 10 September,2009 filed on behalf of the complainant. Therefore, if we make a sensible comparison between the content of the sale deed as authenticated by the District Sub Registrar, Howrah, vis-a-vis the rate as verbally agreed upon between the parties, we can gather some sense. This is because the verbal agreement was done in the year 2008 and the instant sale as refereed was executed after one year i.e. in 2009. The value of the sale deed is noted Rs. 2,52,000/-, which makes some sense.
6. In scrutinizing the documents in the instant case we arrive at a definite conclusion that the O.P. taking opportunity of a verbal agreement made amateurish attempt to place inflated demand of money i.e. an extra amount of Rs. 8,84,000/-, being totally oblivious of the fact that the market price of a 360 sq. ft. car parking place at the same premises was sold at a price of Rs. 2,52,000/- after one year of the said verbal agreement. The greed for money in fact made the o.p. blind folded. He received the total consideration money of Rs. 4 lacs which is admitted. Though the O.P. denied the delivery of possession, the documents which are filed on behalf of the complainant militate the version of the O.P. The electric bills of Nov 11, April 09, March 09 unerringly indicate that the bills were issued in favour of Samiran Adhikary giving the address Ground Floor, Shop G 1, 2/2, Dharmatala Road ( South ), Howrah, PIN. 711202 and the challan issued by the West Bengal State Tax on professions, trades in favour of Samiran Adhikary carries the same address of 2/2, Dharmatala Road ( South ), Howrah, PIN. 711202. Likewise the statement of accounts issued by Bank of Baroda, M.G. Road, Howrah, in favour of the complainant Samiran Adhicary contains the same address i.e., 2/2, Dharmatala Road ( South ), Howrah, PIN. 711202 etc.
7. Therefore, admittedly the O.Ps. received the total consideration money of Rs. 4 lacs and on the basis of the documents it is proved that the complainant is in possession of the same shop room measuring 420 or 428 sq. ft. whatever the case may be. By way of denying the status of the complainant deliberately and with a dream to extract additional money to the tune of Rs. 8,84,000/- the O.P. in fact put the final nail to the coffin.
8. We are not laying much emphasis on the F.I.R. dated 19-01-2012 as the alleged offence of theft was leveled against unknown miscreants. Curiously enough the F.I.R. was lodged on 19-01-2012 i.e. on the next day when the Forum granted interim order against the o.ps. on 18-01-2012. The time lag of 24 hours just indicate that the o.ps. left no stone unturned to level the complainant as a miscreant. This is just an attempt of putting the cart before the horse. This information on the part of the o.ps. further proves that the case of the complainant is a genuine one and for this reason Forum was justified in granting the interim order restraining the men of the O.P. no. 2.
In the result we are of the view that the o.ps. in spite of receiving the total consideration money for the shop room measuring 420 sq. ft. has been deliberately avoiding the execution and registration of the deed on several pretexts and thereby committed deficiency in service. Both the points are accordingly disposed of. This is a fit case for granting relief to the complainant as prayed for.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C.C. No 7 of 2012 ( HDF 7 of 2012 ) be allowed on contest with costs against the o.ps.
The o.ps. be directed to execute and register the sale deed in respect of the shop room as mentioned in the schedule of the compliant within one month from the date of this order failing he shall have to pay compensation at Rs. 100/- per diem till the execution, registration and making over the document are completed.
The complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 1 lac for agony and harassment perpetrated upon him at the instance of the o.ps.
The complainant is further entitled to a litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- from the o.ps.
The o.ps. do pay the total amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- within one month from the date of this order failing the amount shall carry interest at 10 percent per annum.
The complainant is at liberty to put the order into execution after the expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
