DATE OF FILING                    :     18-05-2012.

DATE OF S/R                            :      25-06-2012.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     16-10-2012.

1.         Sri Ahindra Mohan Biswas, 

            son of late Basanta Kumar Biswas,

2.         Mrs. Ruth Biswas,

wife of Ahindra Mohan Biswas,

at 431, G.T. Road ( N ), P.S. Golabari,

District –Howrah,

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

-          Versus   -

1.         Sri Mantu Ranjan Dutta,

son of late Sitanath  Dutta.

2.         Smt. Sefali Rani Dutta,

wife of Sri Mantu Ranjan Dutta,

residing at 149+151,  G.T.  Road, Salkia,

P.S. M.P. Ghora, District – Howrah.

3.          Sri Ashis Das,

son of late Motilal Das,

of 65/2, Sovan Chowdhury Lane, P.S. M.P. Ghora,

District – Howrah.

4.         Sri Shanti Ranjan Dey,

son of late Krishna Dhan Dey,

of 18/4, Sovan Chowdhury Lane,

P.S. M.P. Ghora,

District – Howrah.  . ---------.----------------------------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,

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 complainants have prayed for direction upon the O.Ps. to execute and register the sale deed in terms of the agreement dated 22-05-2010 with respect to the schedule flat, for compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and for litigation costs as the o.p. no. 4 Shanti Ranjan Dey in spite of receiving Rs. 12,50,000/- out of the agreed amount of Rs. 13,50,000/- has refused to register the deed of conveyance with respect to the schedule flat in favour of the complainant. 

2.         The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 in their written version contended interalia that the

power of attorney granted to the o.p. nos. 3 & 4 has been revoked by a deed of revocation of power of attorney on 15-06-2007 ; that the o.p. no. 4 is neither the owner of the disputed property ; that there was no obligatin on the part of the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 for execution of any deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant. 

3.         The o.p. nos. 3 & 4 in filing separate written version contended interalia that the landlord / owner ( O.P. nos. 1 & 2 ) has been withholding intentionally, illegally and arbitrarily registration of the flat to the intending purchasers ; that the  o.p. no. 4 was not given absolute power to register deeds in favour of the intending purchasers ; that the power was ultimately revoked by the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 ; that the conduct of the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 is absolutely malafide ; that in spite of granting irrevocable power of attorney in favour of the o.p. nos. 3 & 4, the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 illegally revoked the same violating the terms of the agreement ; that o.p. nos. 3 & 4 are always ready and willing to execute and register the deed ; that the landlord / owners i.e., o.p. nos. 1 & 2 are standing in the way of registration of the sale deed ; that there is no deficiency in service and has been filed to harass the o.p. nos. 3 & 4. 

4.         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 complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.         Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. Admittedly the complainant entered into an agreement with the o.p. no. 4 on 22-05-2010. Admittedly the o.p. no. 4 received Rs. 12,50,000/- out of the total agreed amount of Rs. 13,500/-. The complainant requested the o.p.  no. 4 on several occasions for executing the deed of sale. But the same could not be effected for revocation of the power of attorney by the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 granted earlier.

6.         It is palpable from the deed of agreement between the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 and 3 & 4 ( para 3 ) ; that the o.p. no. 1 shall execute irrevocable general power of attorney in favour of o.p. nos. 3 & 4. Whether such irrevocable power of attorney can be revoked by the grantor or whether difference of opinion cropped up between the o.ps. cannot dislodge the complainant from his prayer as a consumer. It is further palpable from the conduct of the o.ps. that there occurred gross deficiency in service and the o.ps. cannot have any respite from the clutches of law. The dream of the complainant for a flat at a consideration of Rs. 13,50,000/- cannot be shattered at the whims of the o.p. nos. 1 & 2, who wants granted irrevocable power of attorney to the o.p. nos. 3 & 4. If the o.p. no. 4 entered into an agreement with the complainant with respect to his 60% portion of share, then the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 shall have no grievance. Again, if the o.p. no. 4 did not discharge his part with respect to 40% share of the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 in violation of the agreement dated 15-07-2003, it is the dispute between themselves.  The complainant must not suffer for such bickering. He has made payment from his hard-earned money and the amount is not negligible. How the complainant in spite of paying Rs. 12,50,000/- can be deprived of his flat for sheer arbitrariness of the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 ? He cannot get a flat of identical measurement right now after expiry of 2/3 years. The difference of opinion between the o.ps. resultant non execution of the deed of conveyance has already caused tremendous mental pain and prolonged harassment to the complainant. He must be compensated.

      We are, therefore, of the view that this is a fit case where  the complainant shall get the relief as prayed for. We are further of the view that the recalcitrant o.p. nos. 1 & 2 shall be the confirming party in the act of execution and registration. They have no way escape from the rigours of law.

      Both the points are accordingly disposed of.  

            Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 44 of 2012 ( HDF 44 of 2012 )  be  allowed on contest as against the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 and   3 & 4 with  costs.  

      The complainant be directed to pay the outstanding money of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the o.p. no. 4 within 15 days from the date of this order.

      The o.p. no. 4 after receiving the outstanding consideration money shall execute and register the sale deed with respect to the schedule flat within 30 days from the date of this order. Mean time the complainant shall make over the draft deed to the o.p. no. 4 for approval.

      The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 shall be the confirming parties to the execution  of the deed. If they stand in the way of execution of the deed, legal consequences shall follow.

      The complainant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental pain and prolonged harassment from the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 and 3 & 4 and litigation costs of Rs. 10,000/-.

      The O.Ps. be directed to pay the aforesaid amount proportionally to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order failing the amount shall carry interest @ 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.