DATE OF FILING                    :     24-12-2013.

DATE OF S/R                            :      24-03-2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     30-05-2014.

Sri Sankha Nath,

son of Sri Susanta Nath,

residing at 19/11, Ramkrishna Mandir Path,

P.S. Bantra, District – Howrah,

PIN – 711101.-------------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.         Sri Nirmallya Mukhopadhyay,

            son of Sri Sujit Mukhopadhyay,

            residing at 25, Girish Banerjee Lane,

            P.S. & District – Howrah.

2.         Sri Ganesh  Chowdhury,

            s/o. late Sabhapati,

            residing at  Shanpur,  Dasnagar,

            District – Howrah,

            PIN – 711 105. -----------------------------------------------------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 the complainant  U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended upto date ) wherein the complainant  has prayed for a direction upon the o.p. no. 1  to pay the balance consideration amount to the tune of Rs. 1,80,000/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 19-07- 2011 together with compensation and damages to the tune of Rs. 5 lacks and along with Rs. 25,000/- as litigation costs in spite of repeated request has not been paying heed to the demand of the complainant.

2.               The brief facts of the case is that the complainant made an agreement with the o.p. no. 1 on the dated 19-07-2011 for sale of shop room measuring 310 sq. ft. including super built up area along with facilities as per Schedule ‘A’ of the agreement for a total consideration money of  Rs. 12 lacks with the condition to hand over / transfer the said schedule shop room within 6 months from the said agreement. The complainant paid altogether Rs. 8 lakhs through cheques at different dates as per agreement. The o.p. subsequently failed the agreement dated 19-07-2011 and intended to return back the entire paid up money but on the contrary he ( o.p. no. 1 ) ultimately paid Rs. 6,20,000/- and finally denied to pay the balance amount of  Rs. 1,80,000/- along with interest as agreed with the complainant and finding no other alternative the present complainant lodged the complaint before the Forum seeking relief.  Hence the complaint.   

3.               Notices were served but the same are returned back with the  postal remarks ‘Left’. So the complaint is disposed of ex parte.  

4.               Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

            i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. 1?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief and compensation as prayed for?

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.               Both the points are taken up together for consideration. It appears from the complaint and the deed of agreement that the parties entered into an agreement for sale of shop room as mentioned in the schedule measuring 310 sq. ft. On 19-07-2011 at a consideration price of  Rs. 12 lacks out of which a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs was paid to the o.p. no. 1 through cheques on different dates lastly on 20-07-2011.

6.               Perused the deed of agreement and the money receipts with respect to paid amount  Rs. 8 lakhs.  The o.ps. agreed to make over the shop room within 6 months from the agreement. In spite of the repeated reminders/ requests the o.ps. did not comply with the terms of the agreement on the contrary he intended to refund the total amount without handed over the shop room as per agreement and ultimately he returned back only Rs. 6,20,000/- and left behind Rs. 1,80,000/-. Be that as it may in view of the unchallenged testimonies we are of the view that 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.  461 of 2013 ( HDF 461 of 2013 )  be  allowed ex parte  with costs against o.p. no. 1.  

      The O.P. no. 1  be directed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 21-07-2011 from the date of this order.

      The O.P. no. 1 do also pay a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to the complainant for causing prolonged harassment and mental pain and agony.

      The complainant is also entit5reld to a litigation cost of  Rs. 5,000/- from the o.p. no. 1.    

      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.

  (   P. K. Chatterjee )                                                         

  Member,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.