No. 7/04.11.2009.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

Appellant through Mr. Sunit Kr. Ghosh, the Ld. Advocate and Respondent through Mr. P. Banerjee, the Ld. Advocate are present.  Appellant files BNA.  The Ld. Advocate for the Appellant challenged the impugned order contending that Hiranmoy Chakraborty, the predecessor-in-interest of O.P. Nos. 9, 10 & 11 having died the Power of Attorney granted by deceased stood cancelled and, therefore, the impugned order cannot stand.  It is further argument of the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant that O.P. Nos. 9, 10 & 11 failed either to execute Power of Attorney or to execute Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Complainant and, therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of the O.P. No. 12 – the Appellant.

Mr. Banerjee appearing for the Complainant – Respondent points out that cancellation of the Power of Attorney by Hiranmoy Chakraborty has no consequence as O.P. Nos. 9, 10 & 11 are very much parties before the Forum and they have been directed by the Forum to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance.

We find strength in the contention of Mr. Banerjee and looking into the order impugned we find that ordering portion of the impugned order does not suffer from any defect and can be complied with.

As it appears that the vendors and the developers have worked in consonance which has resulted in the deficiency against the Complainant, the direction given by the Forum below does not appear to be defective in any manner.  There could have been additional direction against O.P. Nos. 9, 10 & 11 for payment of compensation as they were also at fault along with O.P. 12 in their failure to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance, but simple omission of such direction against the O.P. Nos. 9, 10 & 11 does not require any intervention at the instance of the present Appellant who apparently is also at fault and acted in a manner which was deficient in service.

In the above circumstances without entering into the question of maintainability of the appeal for want of parties as the same can be cured by addition of party, in view of our observation on merit of the matter, no interference is being extended and the appeal is dismissed.