DATE OF FILING                    :     06-03-2012.

DATE OF S/R                            :      09-04-2012.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     11-10-2012.

Shiv Kumar Jha ( Advocate ),

51/1/A/22, Rabindra Sarani,

Flat No. 102, Sankar Apartment,

P.S. Liluah, District –Howrah,

PIN – 711204. ------------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.         Sri Soumen Ghosh,

            s/o. late Sailendra Nath Ghosh,

            4/2. Ramlal Ghosh Lane, P.S. Liluah,

            District – Howrah,

            PIN – 711204.

2.         Sudhir Roy,

s/o. late Rajendra Roy,

32B, Saheb Banga, 100, Rabindra Sarani,

P.S. Liluah, District – Howrah,

PIN – 711204.

3.         Sri Anup Roy Chowdhury,

s/o. late Adesh Roy Chowdhury,

3A, Saheb Bagan, 10, Rabindra Sarani,

P.S. Liluah, District – Howrah,

PIN – 711204.

4.         Sri Sujit Sil, .

            s/o. late Durga Sil,

            village & p.o.  Chakpara ( Milani ), P.S. LIluah,

            District – Howrah,

            PIN – 711204.--------------------------------------------------- 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 give possession of the flat no. 202 in the 2^nd floor measuring 650 sq. ft. in holding no. 97/14, Rabindra Sarani, P.S. Liluah, Howrah, together with the prayer for compensation and litigation costs as the o.ps. in spite of repeated requests  refused and neglected to make over the said flat to the petitioner though the petitioner paid Rs. 2,01,000/- as earnest money out of the total agreed amount of Rs. 5,66,150/-.

2.                  The o.p. nos. 2, 3 & 4 did not file written statement in spite of several

dates.  So the case was heard against them ex parte.

3.                  The o.p. no. 1 in filing written statement contended interalia that the

complainant is not a consumer under the o.p. no. 1 Soumen Ghosh ; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. no. 1; that the complaint is harassing and motivated and it should be dismissed.

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. In page 3 at para 3 of the agreement for sale dated April, 2011 we trace that Rs. 5,66,150/- was the total agreed amount out of which the complainant paid Rs. 2,01,000/- as the earnest money. The money receipt issued by the o.p. no. 1 confirms the contention. Therefore, it is palpable that the complainant entered into an agreement for purchase the flat in the 2^nd floor measuring 650 sq. ft. with the o.p. no. 1   The o.p. no. 1   received the earnest money.

6.         Now the o.p. no. 1 in the garb of enhancement of the price refused to comply his part. This is thoroughly illegal. We are of the view that the o.p. no. 1 cannot have any respite from the rigours of law. Receiving the earnest money and refusing to sell out the same comes  within the purview of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. We are, therefore, of the view that the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for. 

      Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 18  of 2012 ( HDF 18 of 2012 )  be  allowed on contest with  costs  against  the O.P. no. 1 and dismissed ex parte against the rest but without cost.   

      The O.P. no. 1 Soumen Ghosh be directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance with respect to the flat being no. 202 ( 2^nd floor ) measuring about 650 sq. ft. at  97/14, Rabindra Sarani, P.S. Liluah, Howrah, within 60 days. 

      The complainant do pay the balance amount of Rs. 3,65,150/- ( Rs. 5,66,150 – 2,01,000 ) to the o.p. no. 1 as condition precedent for causing execution, registration and delivery of  possession of the suit flat.

      The complainant is further entitled to a compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and prolonged harassment. He is also entitled to a litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

            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.