DATE OF FILING : 09-03-2011.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 26-12-2011.
Smt. Anuradha Bhattacharyya,
w/o. Sri Goutam Bhattacharyaa,
residing at flat no. 2/A ( 2nd floor ),
88, Dr. Priya Nath Ghosh Road, P.S. Bally,
District –Howrah----------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. Smt. Sumita Biswas,
w/o. Sri Mrinal Kanti Biswas,
residing at 29, Dingsai Para Road, P.S. Bally,
District – Howrah, and also at
5, Panchannatala Road, 2nd floor,
Bally, Howrah.
2. Smt. Sunita Saha,
w/o. Sri Biswajit Saha,
residing at 88, Dr. Priyanath Ghosh Road,
P.S. Bally, District – Howrah.
3. Smt. Supriya Banerjee,
w/o. Sri Suman Banerjee,
residing at Madhu Pandit Road,
P.O. Talpukur, P.S. Barackpore,
District – 24 Parganas ( N ).
4. M/S. Eshan Constructions,
a proprietorship firm,
having its office at 162/A, Bihari Dutta Bagan Road,
P.S. Dumdum, Kolkata – 28,
being represented by Sri Dipak Kundu,
son of Late Jagabandhu Kundu,
residing at 5, Kabi Bharat Chandra Road, P.S. Dumdum,
Kolkata – 28.--------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
1. Hon’ble President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya.
2. Hon’ble Member : Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya.
C O U N S E L
Representatives for the complainant : Shri Mainak Kumar Banerjee,
Smt. Mou Sarkar,
Shri Suvodeep Pal,
Ld. Advocates.
Representative for the Opposite party no. 2 : Shri Swapan Kr. Chakraborty,
Ld. Advocate.
Representative for the opposite party no. 4 : Smt. Dola Majumdar,
Ld. Advocate.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. The complainant brought this complaint against the four o.ps. on the ground of deficiency as they, on repeated requests failed to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant with respect to the flat being no. 2/A on the 2nd floor measuring 730 sq. ft. at 88, Dr. Priya Nath Ghosh, P.S. Bally, District – Howrah. Though the entire consideration money of Rs. 5,11,000/- was paid and the possession thereto was delivered.
2. O.P. Nos. 1 & 3 filed separate written versions and admitted the contention of the complainant and stated interalia that they executed power of attorney in favour of Dipak Kundu, the proprietor of o.p. no. 4. It is the duty of the o.p. no. 4 to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the petitioner.
3. The o.p. no. 2, Sunita Saha, filed separate written version and contended interalia that the o.p. no. 4 did not comply the terms and conditions of the agreement executed among the parties for developing and promoting of the plot in dispute and till date o.p. no. 4 did not handover the allocated share of the o.p. no. 2 in spite of repeated requests ; that several litigations are pending between the o.p. nos. 2 & 4 ; that the complainant did not pay any price to the o.p. no. 2 ; that the complainant and the o.p. no. 4 are in connivance to harass the o.p. no. 2.
4. The o.p. no. 4, the promoter and developer, also filed written statement contending interalia that the petitioner is not at all consumer ; that the o.p. no. 2 has not executed any power of attorney in favour of o.p. no. 4 after revocation of the same on 17-05-2006.
Two points require determination - (a) whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps. in withholding the process of registration and (b) whether the complainant is entitled to an order as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
5. Both the points are taken up together. Ld. Lawyer for the o.ps. no. 1 & 3 candidly admitted that they have no objection if the deed is registered in favour of the complainant. They have already executed the power of attorney in favour of o.p. no. 4 for registration of the deed in question. Ld. Lawyer for the o.p. no. 2 argued that the relation between the O.P. nos. 2 & 4 has been soured up for non payment of the dues by the O.P. no. 4 ; that several litigations are pending between O.P. nos. 2 & 4 and that for such bitter relation the O.P. no. 2 had to revoke the power of attorney. It is the duty of the O.P. no. 4 to execute and register the deed of conveyance.
6. Be that as it may, admittedly the petitioner / complainant is in continual possession of the flat in dispute that they have paid the entire consideration money of Rs. 5,11,000/- to the O.P. no. 4 and that the O.P. nos. 1 & 3 has no objection if the deed is registered in favour of the complainant. When all the formalities on the part of the complainant has been discharged with full satisfaction, a bonafide purchaser cannot suffer for the personal bickering of the parties namely O.P. no. 2 and O.P. no. 4. The contention of the o.p. no. 2 that she revoked the power of attorney granted in favour of o.p. no. 4 on 17-05-2006 and subsequent transaction between the complainant and o.p. no. 4 has no legal basis, cannot hold ground in view of the fact that the incident of revocation was not officially informed to the complainant. We are, therefore, of the clear view that gross deficiency in service has crept in for the dormancy of the O.P. nos. 2 and 4. They are legally duty bound to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the petitioner / complainant. The case, therefore, succeeds.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the consumer complaint being no. HDF 16 of 2011 is allowed on contest with costs.
That the O.P. nos. 2 & 4 be directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance with respect to the flat in dispute in favour of the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order failing the complainant shall be at liberty to put the order into execution.
That the complainant do get an award of Rs. 1,000/- towards cost of litigation from O.P. nos. 2 & 4 ( Rs. 500/- each ).
That the complainant do further get an award of Rs. 30,000/- from the O.P. no. 4 towards compensation for mental pain and agony he had to withstand for non compliance by the O.P. no. 4 within 30 days from the date of this order failing the amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
