DATE OF FILING : 16-10-2012.
DATE OF S/R : 21-11-2012.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 11-08-2014.
Sri Golak Bag,
son of late Mukti Pada Bag,
residing at 19, Botanical Garden Road,
P.O. Botanical Garden, P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah,
PIN – 711103.-------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. Sri Balai Chandra Naskar,
son of late Panchanan Naskar,
residing at 29/1, Botanical Garden Road,
P.O. Batanical Garden, P.S. Shibpur,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711103.
2. Md. Nooruddin,
son of Md. Shamsuzzoha,
sole proprietor of M/A. Turbo Construction,
having its residence and office at
22A, Royd. Street,
Kolkata – 700016.-------------------------------------------------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 and register the deed of conveyance with respect to the schedule mentioned flat in favour of the complainant and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1 lakh together with litigation costs of Rs. 10,000/- as the complainant in spite of payment of Rs. 85,000/- out of total consideration amount of Rs. 6,32,500/- as per agreement to the o.p. no. 2, the progress of the construction work is very lethargic and the o.p. no. 2 did not pay any heed to the repeated requests of the complainant.
2. The o.p.1 in his written version contended interalia that he did not receive any amount from the complainant and as such he has no liability for the same.
3. The o.p. no. 2 in his written version contended interalia that no question of
malafide intention does arise; that the complainant is not ready and willing to have the property registered. So the complaint should be dismissed.
4. 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. Admittedly the o.p. received Rs. 85,000/- from the complainant as advance money out of the total agreed amount of Rs. 6,32,500/-. Admittedly only 15% of construction is complete. The report of the ld. Commissioner also state the sorry state of affairs. If since January, 2011 only 15% construction work is done, the non-cooperative attitude of the o.p. is manifest. He is in no mood to complete the work and deliver possession of the agreed flat to the complainant who dreamt of a new flat. Since three years have already elapsed, the price of flats has soared high and in fact is beyond the reach of commoners.
5. However, regard being had to the present position of construction, we feel that the complainant must not be placed in further anxiety. For gross deficiency of service the o.ps. shall have to be penalized. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 142 of 2012 ( HDF 142 of 2012 ) be and the same is allowed on contest with costs as against the O.Ps.
The O.P. no. 2 be directed to refund the sum of Rs. 85,000/- to the complainant received as an advance together with the interest @ of 12% p.a. since the date of receiving the amounts till full satisfaction within 30 days from the date of this order
The o.p. no. 2 do further pay Rs. 1 lakh to the complainant as compensation for causing mental pain, harassment and frustration within 30 days from the date of this order failing the entire amount ( Rs. 85,000 + 1,00,000/- ) = 1,85,000/- shall carry penal interest @ of Rs. 15% p.a. till full satisfaction.
The o.p. do further pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant 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.
