DATE OF FILING : 21-11-2013.
DATE OF S/R : 17-12-2013.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 17-10-2014.
Sri Gopal Naskar,
son of Sri Badal Chandra Naskar,
resident of 56 + 60/2, Kantapukur 3rd Bye Lane,
Partha Apartment, Flat no. 301, P.S. Bantra,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711 101.------------------------------------------------------------------ COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
Sri Sushanta Panja, ( O.p. no. 1 )
son of late Kartick Panja,
resident of Icchapur Majherpara,
near TMC Party Office, P.S. Jagachha, District – Howrah,
PIN – 711104,
also at 56 + 60/2, Kantapukur 3rd Bye Lane,
Partha Apartment, flat no. 101,
P.S. Bantra, District - Howrah,
PIN – 711101, authorized representative of
M/S TAT Construction, ( o.p. no. 2 )
having its office at 25/1, Natabar Paul Road, P.S. Bantra,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711 101. ----------------------------------------------------------------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. not to cause any obstruction and interference by way of blocking free ingress and egress of the car and other vehicles of the complainant to the suit garage as mentioned in the schedule and to restrain the o.ps. from raising permanent construction alongside northern, southern and western end of the walls with intent to block the suit garage and to pay compensation and damages to the tune of Rs. 1 lakh together with litigation costs.
2. The o.p. no. 1 in his written version contended interalia that he is not the agent of o.p. no. 2 and as such he has no nexus with the o.p. no. 2 ; that the complaint has been filed against him only to harass the o.p. no. 1.
3. The o.p. no. 2 in his written version denied the material allegations made in the petition though admitted the sale of the suit garage as mentioned in the schedule on 26-09-2008 and 19-02-2013 ; that the measurement of the suit garage as stated in the complaint schedule is disputed. 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 entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
4. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. Admittedly the complainant purchased the suit garage from the o.p. no. 2 M/S TAT Construction by virtue of registered deed of sale dated 26-09-2008 and 19-02-2013 respectively ( Para 7, written version filed by o.p. no. 2 ). If the complainant intends to install collapsible gate by joining the two contiguous garages for safety it is none of the business of the o.p. no. 2 as he is divested with the proprietorship of the same after sale and the complainant is the absolute owner of the two garages ( plaint schedule ). Therefore, undoubtedly the complainant was a consumer under the o.p. no. 2 and such status of the complainant did not cease as gross deficiency in service surfaced on 14-11-2013 when the o.p. no. 1 in collusion with the o.p. no. 2 with intent to block the ingress and egress of the suit garages started placing four wheelers belonging to himself and his friends. Even the o.p. no. 1 at the behest of o.p. no. 2 attempted to raise a permanent construction alongside the walls at the southern end and western end of the suit garage only to create permanent obstruction to the garages. On the protest of the complainant hot exchange of invectives ensued and the complainant was compelled to lodge G.D. with the local Bantra P.S. ( G.D. Entry no. 955/13 ). It is not the luxury of the complainant to file G.D. with the police station and subsequently to file instant complaint on 21-11-2013.
5. If the front space of the garage is purposefully blocked by the o.ps. only to teach a bonafide purchaser a good lesson, the purpose of purchasing the garage is meaningless. Naturally, gross deficiency of service was committed by the o.p. no. 2. Unless the o.p. no. 1 did not act to obstruct the garage with some hooligans at the behest of o.p. no. 2, the name of the o.p. no. 1 did not have figured in the cause title of the petition. What axe the complainant has to grind against the o.p. no. 1 and to implicate him in the written complaint before the police station or in the petition of complaint ? No alternative case has been made out by the o.p. no.1.
In the result, we are of the view that this is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed.
Both the points are accordingly disposed of.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 399 of 2013 ( HDF 399 of 2013 ) be and the same is allowed on contest with costs as against the O.Ps.
The interim order passed on 25-11-2013 be made absolute.
The o.ps. be permanently restrained from causing any obstruction by way of blocking the free egress and ingress of the car and other vehicles of the complainant to and from the suit garage on both northern and southern end.
The o.p. no. 2 be further restrained from making any permanent construction along side the walls at the northern, southern as well as western end of the suit garage in compliance to the promise embodied in the two registered sale deeds dated 26-09-2008 and 19-02-2013.
The o.p. no. 2 do pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental pain and unnecessary harassment together with Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost.
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 )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
