DATE OF FILING                    :     10-08-2011.

DATE OF S/R                            :      27-04-2012.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     25-09-2012.

Sri Om Prakash Gupta,

son of late Ram Nawal Gupta,

residing at 80/1/A, Girish Ghosh Road, Belurmath,

P.S. Bally, District – Howrah,

PIN – 711202.----------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.         Sri Dudh Nath Sharma,

            son of late Rang Lal Sharma,

            of 45, Bijoy Kumar Mukherjee Road, Salkia,

            P.S. Golabari, District – Howrah,

            PIN – 711106.

2.         Ahmed Raja Siddiqui,

            son of late Hasan Raza Siddiqui,

            of 27, Joy Bibi Lane, Ghusuri, P.S. Bally,

            District – Howrah,

            PIN – 711107.           

3.         Smt. Lakshmi Devi,

            wife of late Ram Pujun Singh,

4.         Smt. Shefali Sharma,

            wife of late Biswanath Paul Sharma.

5.         Sri Dipak Sharma.

6.         Sri Vijay Sharma.

7.         Sri Ajay Sharma.

8.         Sri Sanjay Sharma.

9.         Sri Amar  Sharma,

            all sons of late Biswanath Paul Sharma.

10        Smt. Rita Mishra.

11.       Smt. Uma Pandey,

            both daughters of late Biswanath Paul Sharma

            nos. 3 to 11 are of 80/1/A, Girish Ghosh Road, Belurmath,

            P.S. Bally, District – Howrah,

            PIN – 711 202. -----------------------------------------------------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,

as amended against the O.Ps.  alleging deficiency in service U/S 2( 1 )( g ),  2( 1 )( o ) of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for direction upon the O.Ps. to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant with respect to the flat mentioned in Schedule ‘A’, to complete the pending works of the building as mentioned in Schedule ‘B’ and for compensation of Rs. 1,40,000/- from o.p. nos. 1 & 2 as the o.ps. in spite of receiving the full consideration money of Rs. 4,15,101/- as per the agreement dated 30-06-2009 did not execute the deed of registration with respect to the ‘A’ Schedule property measuring 750 sq. ft.

2.                  O.P. no. 2 in filing separate written version contended interalia that the

agreement was executed between the father of the o.p. no. 2 and the complainant. So he has no liability with respect to the unfinished works or registration of the deed of conveyance.

3.                  O.p. nos. 5, 6 & 7 in filing separate written version contended interalia

that they executed a power of attorney in favour of o.p. no. 1 ; that the complainant purchased a flat from o.p. nos. 1 & 2 and paid the entire consideration money ; that the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 are bound to execute the sale deed with respect to the flat in question.

4.         Upon pleadings of  parties two points arose for determination :

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      :

5.         Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. The agreement dated 30-06-2009 between the complainant and the o.ps. is undisputed. Undisputedly the full consideration money ( Rs. 4,15,101/- ) was received by the o.ps. for a flat measuring 750 sq. ft. from the complainant. Complainant was  delivered possession of the same. But all the requests of the complainant for completion of registration went in vain. The letter dated 31-08-2009  unerringly shows that the complainant left no stone unturned to pursue the o.p. no. 2 who is now controlling the business of his father. The letter dated 03-10-2009 further shows that the o.p. no. 1 was ready to execute the same. Therefore, it is clear that the o.p. no. 2 has been standing in the way of registration of the deed on the fragile plea that the agreement executed between his father and the complainant is not binding upon him. It is surprising to note how the o.p. no. 2 can raise such plea when the complainant is in possession of the Schedule ‘A’ flat and paid the entire consideration money. We are, therefore, of the view that this is a fit case where the complainant shall be granted relief as prayed for.

      Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 60  of 2011 ( HDF 60  of 2011 )  be  allowed on contest with  costs  against  the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 and dismissed without cost against the rest.   

      The O.P. nos. 2  be directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant with respect to the flat as mentioned in ‘A’ Schedule within 30 days from the date of this order.

      The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 be further directed to complete the pending work as mentioned in ‘B’ Schedule within 30 days from the date of this order.

      The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 do pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- for mental pain, agony and prolonged harassment to the complainant. 

      The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 do pay Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation costs to the complainant.

      The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 be further directed to pay the entire amount aggregating Rs. 60,000/-  ( Rs. 50,000 + Rs. 10,000/-) within 30 days from the date of this order failing the amount shall carry interest @ Rs. 12% per annum.   

      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.