1.      Sri Bikash Kumar Ghosh,

2.      Kumari Mina Ghosh,

both complainant nos. 1 & 2

son and daughter of late Barindra Kr. Ghosh,

of 17, Kuchil Sarkar 1^st Bye Lane, P.O. Kadamtala,

P.S. Bantra, District – Howrah,

PI – 711101

3.      Smt. Smritikana Ghosh,

wife of Sri  Arun Kumar Ghosh,

of 18/5, Kuchil Sarkar 1^st Bye Lane,

P.O. Kadamtala, P.S. Bantra, District – Howrah,

PIN – 711101.

4.      Smt. Alpana Roy,

wife of Sri Sabuj Roy,

of 30/4/1, Brindaban Mullick Lane,

P.O. Kadamtala, P.S. Bantra,

District – Howrah,

PIN – 711101.--------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANTS.

-          Versus   -

1.      Sri Dipankar Majhi,

son of Niranjan Majhi,

12, Panchanan Chatterjee Lane,

P.O. Kadamtala, P.S. Bantra,

District – Howrah,

PIN – 711101.

2.      Sri Sujit Roy,

son of late Dilip Roy,

15, Kuchil Sarkar 1^st Bye Lane,

P.O. Kadamtala, P.S. Bantra,

District – Howrah,

PIN – 711101.-----------------------------------------------------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 complainants U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986

wherein the complainants have  prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to pay damage to the extent of Rs. 2 lakhs and compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- and litigation costs of Rs. 35,000/- as the O.Ps. in spite of the agreement dated 07-06-2010 and 29-07-2011 did not start any construction work over the ‘A’ schedule property nor took the possession of the same to fulfill the agreement. Complainants also pray for cancellation of the agreements with the O.Ps.  

2.                  The o.ps. in their  written version contended interalia that the O.Ps. prepared a

deed of partnership on 17-06-2010 to carry on the construction business having its office at Kuchil Sarkar 1^st Bye Lane, P.S. Bantra, Howrah. Subsequently due to difference of opinion the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 dissolved the partnership business and for such dissolution of partnership, the construction work could not be undertaken. 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.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainants are   entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

4.      Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. As per terms of the

agreement dated 07-06-2010 the O.P. no. 1 agreed that the construction work would be completed within 18 months from the date of sanctioned plan etc. But in spite of the terms of the agreement the O.Ps. neither took any measure for taking possession of the schedule mentioned property nor took any step for construction work. The complainants carried on negotiations and made reagreement on 29-07-2011 for construction of the multi storied building on the ‘A’ schedule property but all efforts were in vain. For gross deficiency in service the complainants who are senior citizens could not fulfill their dreams for a multi storied building and to have their own flats. In view of the latest position of law the complainant who is a land owner of the ‘A’ schedule property is also a consumer and is fit to seek relief from this Forum.

5.      On scrutiny of the agreement we are of the clear view that the dream project could

not come into reality only for the gross deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. On the contrary, valuable time since 07-06-2010 have elapsed and the dream of the complainants remain unfulfilled.  Therefore, we are of the view that this is a fit case where 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. 13 of 2013 ( HDF  13 of 2013 )  be  and the same is allowed on contest against the O.Ps. with costs.

      The agreements between the parties dated 07-06-2010 and 29-07-2011 stand cancelled.

      The o.ps. be  directed to pay damage to the complainants jointly and severally to the tune of Rs. 1 lac.

      The O.Ps. be further directed to pay a compensation to the tune of Rs. 1 lac jointly and severally to the complainants for causing mental pain, agony and prolonged harassment due to unfair trade practice by the O.Ps.

      The complainants are further entitled litigation costs of  Rs. 5,000/- from the O.Ps.

      The O.Ps. be directed to pay the above mentioned amount totaling Rs. 2.05.000/- (  Rs. 1,00,000 + 1,00,000 + 5,000/-) to the complainants within 30 days from the date of this order.

      The complainants be directed to refund Rs. 1 lakh received from the O.P. no. 1.

      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  )                                               (    T.K. Bhattacharya  )

  President,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                                   President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.

 (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                              (  P. K. Chatterjee )

 Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                                       Member,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.