This is a complaint made by (1) Smt. Bharati Naskar, wife of Late Paresh Chandra Naskar and (2) Sri Sandip Naskar, son of Late Paresh Chandra Naskar, both residents of 18/1, Kalikapur Main Road, P.S.-Garfa, P.O.-Mukundapur, Kolkata-700 099 against Sri Palan Naskar, son of Late Manik Naskar, residing at Srikhanda, P.O.-Panchpota, P.S.-Sonarpur, Kolkata-700 152 and twelve others, praying for an order (i) directing the OPs to handover the building completion certificate along with registered power of attorney, (ii) directing the OPs to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of income, (iii) directing the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards extra work, (iv) directing OP No.1 to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and (v) Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost.
Facts in brief are that OP No.1 Sri Palan Naskar is a developer under the OP Nos.2 to 13 and OP No.2 to 13 are owners of land. Bhudar Chandra Naskar was also one of the co-owners who subsequently died and OP No.10 to 13 are the heirs which are already on the record.
Complainants were looking for a suitable shop room near their house for earning their livelihood, learnt that the building has already been constructed and so they approached OP No.1 who offered them to sell a shop room of 100 sq.ft. built up area . Complainant found that offer suitable and so he entered into an agreement for sale.
On 6.6.2013 for purchasing that shop room at a consideration of Rs.6,50,000/-, Complainant was told that Rs.6,00,000/- is the initial booking amount and he paid that amount on the execution of the agreement. OP No.1 delivered possession of the said shop room in incomplete condition. On the request of Complainant OP No.1 asked Complainant to complete the rest work for which he will pay the Complainant Rs.15,000/-. OP No.1 was bound to give possession and make a deed of conveyance by 31.8.2013. But did not do so. Complainant purchased the shop room for earning his own livelihood. OP No.1 did not provide copy of the sanctioned plan, copy of registered power of attorney and did not execute deed of conveyance. Complainant issued a notice through his Advocate, but of no use. So, complainant filed this case.
On the basis of above facts, the complaint was admitted and notices were served upon the OPs. But, OPs did not take any step. So, the case was heard ex-parte.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed a petition praying for treating the complaint petition as affidavit-in-chief and the petition was allowed.
Main point for determination as to whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for in the prayer portion of the complaint petition.
The first prayer of Complainant is for a direction upon the OP to execute deed of conveyance in favour of the Complainant and also for directing the OPs to handover Completion Certificate along with the registered power of attorney, joint venture agreement and previous deeds.
Since the allegation of the Complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
Copy of agreement for sale has been filed by the Complainant which reveals that he paid Rs.6,50,000/-. Accordingly, we are of the view that Complainant is entitled to a deed of conveyance in his favour. Other prayers by Complainant are direction upon the OPs towards loss of income. Complainant has not furnished details as to how he lost income and so he cannot be allowed Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of income.
Similarly, Complainant prayed for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.
In our view no ground is furnished as to why the Complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-. Accordingly, these prayers also cannot be allowed.
Hence,
ordered
CC/432/2016 and the same is allowed ex-parte in part. OPs are directed to make deed of conveyance in favour of Complainant within three months of this order. The liability of OPs are joint and several.
