DATE OF FILING : 02.7.2014.
DATE OF S/R : 07.8.2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 30.12.2014.
Joydeb Kumar Ghosh,
son of late Bishnu Pada Ghosh,
Shivam Apartment, 27, Netaji Subhas Road,
flat no. 104, 1st floor, P.O. Liluah, P.S. Bally,
District Howrah,
PIN 711204.
- Smt. Madhumita Ghosh,
wife of Joydeb Kumar Ghosh,
Shivam Apartment, 27, Netaji Subhas Road,
Flat no. 104, 1st floor, P.O. Liluah, P.S. Bally,
District Howrah,
PIN 711204. ………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.
Versus -
Sri Raj Kumar Mishra ( Promoter ),
son of late Jagannath Mishra,
41, Thakurdas Ghosh Street, P.O. Liluah,
P.S. Bally, District Howrah,
PIN 711204.
- Sri Somnath Sur ( Developer ),
son of late Netai Chandra Sur,
proprietor of M/S. Raj Construction,
7, Dinonath Ghosh Street, P.O. Belur Math , P.S. Bally ,
District Howrah,
PIN 711202…………………………………………………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
The instant case was filed by complainants U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainants have prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to execute proper sale deed in respect of the flat measuring 710 sq. ft. and to pay compensation to the tune ofRs. 35,000/- and litigation costs of Rs. 10,000/- as the o.ps. in spite of delivery of possession of the suit flat violated the terms of agreement dated 12-8-2006.
The o.ps. in their written version contended interalia that though the complainants have paid Rs. 7,20,000, Rs. 2,30,000/- is still due and that the flat was being used by the complainants for commercial purpose. So the complaint should be dismissed.
3. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
- Whether the complainants areentitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
Both the points aretaken up together for consideration. Admittedly the complainants are in possession of the suit flat measuring 710 sq. ft. vide agreement dated 12-8-2006. The complainants already paid the entire consideration money of Rs. 7,20,000/- ( vide receipts filed ). Accordingly possession of the flat was delivered to the complainants.
- The claim of the o.ps. that Rs. 2,30,000/- is still due from the complainants is just bizarre and are attempts to squeeze extra money. Unless the full consideration money was paid, the o.ps. would not have delivered has possession of the flat.The other plea put forward by the o.ps. is that the flat is being used by the complainants for commercial purpose. If the complainants’ nephew temporarily acted as an agent of broker, such act cannot be branded as commercial activity. No instrument or machine or industry is set up there. So the excuse of the o.ps. to delay the execution is just fragile. On scrutiny of the documents ( enclosures ) we are of the view that this is fit case where the prayer of the complainants shall be allowed.Both the points accordingly disposed of.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 371 of 2014 ( HDF 371 of 2014 ) be and the same is allowed on contest with costs against the O.P. no. 2 and dismissed without costs against o.p. no. 1.
The O.P. 2 be directed to execute and register proper sale deed with respect to the suit flat within 30 days from the date of this order.
The o.p. no. 2 be further directed to pay Rs. 30,000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental pain and prolonged harassment within the period as mentioned above.
The o.p. no. 2 do further pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainants as litigation costs.
The complainants are 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.
