DATE OF FILING : 15-01-2013. DATE OF S/R : 11-02-2013. DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 27-06-2013. Sri Ranjay Shaw, s/o. Sri Anal Shaw, residing at 27, Abhoy Guha Road, P.O. Liluah, P.S. Bally, District – Howrah, PIN – 711204.-------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT. - Versus - 1. Sri Shyam Chowdhury, 2. Sri Goutam Chowdhury, 3. Sri Gopal Chowdhury, 4. Sri Panchu Chowdhury, 5. Smt. Manu Devi, all are residing at 24/1, Abhoy Guha Road, P.O. Liluah, P.S. Bally, District – Howrah, PIN – 711 204. 6. Sri Raj Kumar Mishra, 7. M/S. Neel Kanth Abasan Pvt. Ltd. represented by its Directors 8. Smt. Anjali Mishra, 9. Sri Sourav Singh, 10. Sri Palash Acharya, -----------------------------------------------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.ps. to deliver possession of the flat mentioned in ‘B’ Schedule and to execute and register the deed of conveyance with respect to the same, to pay compensation and litigation costs as the O.Ps. in spite of the agreement dated 24-11-2011 and receiving Rs. 14,85,000/-, Rs. 77,000/- in excess of the agreed amount of Rs. 14,08,000/- did not deliver possession of the same and execute the deed of conveyance with respect to the flat. 2. The o.ps. in their written version contended interalia that the complainant only paid Rs. 9,22,000/- on different dates out of the total consideration money of Rs. 14,08,000/- ; that the complainant did not comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement. 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 complainant is are entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? DECISION WITH REASONS : 4. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. On scrutiny of the enclosures it appears that the complainant only paid Rs. 9,22,000/- on different dates from 12-10-2011 till 28-09-2012. We trace no other money receipts to justify the claim of the complainant that he paid Rs. 14,85,000/- i.e., Rs. 77,000/- in excess to that of the agreed amount. Naturally this claim of the complainant is just myth and not supported by any cogent documents. 5. However, since the agreement dated 24-11-2011 stands and the O.P. is in the receipt of Rs. 9,22,000/- from the complainant towards the consideration money, it is the duty of the O.P. to deliver possession of the same flat and to execute and register the deed of conveyance thereto. Accordingly both the points are disposed of. Hence, O R D E R E D That the C. C. Case No. 8 of 2013 ( HDF 8 of 2013 ) be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.Ps. but without costs. The O.Ps. be directed to deliver possession of the ‘B’ schedule flat to the complainant and execute the sale deed with respect to the same within 45 days from the date of this order after receiving the balance amount of Rs. 4,86,000/-. 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 ) ( 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. |