Smt. Padmalata Dalui,

w/o. late NIranjan Dalui,

residing at 2/5, Bairagipara Lane, P.S. Bantra,

District – Howrah,

now residing at the house of Jyotsna Ghosal,

Pallabpukur, Santragachi, ( near Kalitala More ),

P.S. Jagacha, District – Howrah,

PIN – 711 104. ------------------------------------------------------------------ COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.      Sri Ashis Khan,

s/o. Shibnath Khan,

residing at 60/9, ‘Q’  Road, P.S. Liluah,

P.O.  Dasnagar,  Howrah,

PIN  – 711105.

2.      Sri Laxmiprosad Show,

3.      Sri Amit Giri,

both of 2/5, Bairagi Para Lane, P.S. Bantra, District – Howrah, PIN – 711 101.-----------------------------------------------------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.p. no. 1, Ashis Khan for completion of the remaining works of the 1^st floor flat as mentioned in the ‘B’ schedule of the complaint as per contract with the complainant for allocation of the owner’s share and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- for causing  mental pain and agony and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation costs as the O.P. in spite of repeated requests did not complete the remaining works of the 1^st floor  flat of ‘A’ schedule of the complaint as per  share.

2.                  Notices were properly served upon the O.Ps. In spite of receiving the notice the

O.Ps. did not appear. So the complaint was heard ex parte.  

3.                  Two points are accordingly framed for decision of the complaint  :

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. As per agreement as it is

revealed from the enclosures that the complainant is entitled to get 40% of the building area and the developer is to get 60% share. It further appears that the O.P. no. 1 being developer delivered possession of 200 sq. ft. flat in the ground floor but did not complete the entire interior and essential work of the 1^st floor residential flat as per the contract. Therefore, we trace gross deficiency in service to the complainant who is also a consumer in view of the latest position of law. Therefore, it is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed.

      Hence,                             

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 281 of 2013 ( HDF 281  of 2013 )  be  and the same is allowed ex parte against O.P. no. 1 Ashis Khan with costs and dismissed without costs against the rest.

      The O.P. no. 1 be directed to complete the remaining works of the 1^st floor flat as mentioned in the ‘B’ schedule of the complaint  within 30 days from the date of this order.

      The o.p. no. 1 do also pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/-  as compensation to the complainant  for causing mental pain, agony  and prolonged harassment.  

      The complainant is  also entitled to a litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/-.

      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.