DATE OF FILING : 10-06-2013.
DATE OF S/R : 03-07-2013.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 23-09-2013.
Sri Pradip Kumar Banerjee,
son of late Kamal Kumar Banerjee,
residing at village & P.O. Makardah,
Bhattacharya Para, P.S. Domjur,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711 409.------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. Sri Shyamal Kumar Banerjee,
son of late Bimal Kumar Banerjee,
residing at 56, Raj Ballav Saha Lane,
P.O. P.S. & District – Howrah,
PIN – 711101.
2. Sri Probhat Kumar Bandyopadhyay,
son of late Binoy Kumar Banerjee,
residing at Sreshthanjali Apartment,
29, Sarat Bose Road, ( 3rd floor ),
B near Subhas Nagar Post Office, Dum Dum Cantonment,
P.O. Subhas Nagar, Kolkata,
PIN – 700 065.-------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.
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 execute proper register deed of sale with respect to the suit property as mentioned in the schedule and for compensation to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs together with costs as the O.Ps. in spite of repeated requests did not ultimately execute and register the same.
2. The o.p. no. 1 in his written version admitted the existence of mutual
agreement between the parties for the sale of the property but denied the full payments.
3. The O.P. no. 2 in his written version contended iteralia that the case is not
maintainable and that he is willing to sell the suit property to the complainant.
4. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. ?
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. Be it mentioned that
Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 empowers the Forum to entertain complaints if he is a consumer. Naturally, the agitation over not maintainability of the complaint is set at rest.
6. Admittedly some of the co-sharers have already executed the registered deed of
sale in favour of the complainant on 18-12-2012 in respect of their respective portion. Admittedly the entire consideration money have already been paid to the O.Ps. though O.P. no. 2 disputes the receipt of Rs. 2 lacs. He admitted in his written version in para 9 that he received only Rs. 1 lac.
7. Whatever be the dispute with respect to the total consideration money we are of
the view that the complainant is a bonafide consumer. When all the other co-sharers have executed the registered deed of sale with respect to their respective shares, the O.P. no. 2 cannot have any way out from the rigours of law.
Therefore, it is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed.
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 184 of 2013 ( HDF 184 of 2013 ) be and the same is allowed on contest with costs as against the O.P. no. 2, Probhat Kumar Bandyopadhyay and be dismissed against the O.P. no. 1 without cost.
The O.P. no. 2 be directed to execute and register the proper sale deed with respect to his share in favour of the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.
The complainant is also entitled to a litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/- from the O.P. no. 2.
No order as to compensation.
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.
