##PAGE1##

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST BENGAL

FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/19/A/133/2024

M/S FAIR DEAL CONSTRUCTION

PRESENT ADDRESS - 177/1, G.T. ROAD, P.O & P.S. - SERAMPORE, HOOGHLY -

712201,WEST BENGAL.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus

ANINDRA ADHIKARY

PRESENT ADDRESS - 17/D, SATYACHARAN SATRI STREET, MAHESH, P.O.- RISHRA, P.S. -

SERAMPORE, HOOGHLY - 712248,WEST BENGAL.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIBHAS RANJAN DE , PRESIDENT

HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY , MEMBER

FOR THE APPELLANT:

SATYAJIT SENAPATI (Advocate)

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

ANINDRA ADHIKARY

DATED: 23/12/2025

ORDER

MRIDULA ROY, MEMBER

1) The instant appeal has been preferred in connection with the final order dated

28.03.2024 passed by the Ld. DCDRC, Hooghly, in consumer complaint case being

CC/161/2019 allowing the complaint case in part on contest directing the Opposite

Party to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Complainants

in respect of the property mentioned under schedule in complaint petition within forty

five days from the date of passing of the final order i.d. providing liberty to the

Complainant to execute the Order as per law, further directing the OP to pay

compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- within forty five days

from the date of passing of the order failing which the Complainant were given

liberty to execute the same as per law, mentioning that in the event of non-

payment/non-compliance of the above noted direction the OP was directed to pay or

to deposit Rs.5000/- to the consumer legal aid account of DCDRC, Hooghly which to

be utilized for the poor litigant.

2) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order the OP has preferred the

instant appeal on the ground, inter alia, for the Ld. DCDRC, Hooghly erred in

arriving to the decision since the Ld. Commission wrongly observed that the Land

Owners executed the power of attorney in favour of the OP though the Land Owners

namely Ramendranath Banerjee, Namita Banerjee, Suryakanta Banerjee,

Shyamakanta Banerjee, Chandrakanta Banerjee jointly executed a general power of

attorney on 12.09.2003 and Smt. Sefali Banerjee, Smt, Kalyani Chatterjee and Smt.

Chaitali Banerjee also executed a general power of attorney on 06.09.2005 to

Subhra Majumder and Kamal Ghos Roy jointly appointing them as constituted

attorney holder whereas owing to death of most of the executants the said power of

attorney became inoperative.

3) Accordingly, the Appellant prays for setting aside of the impugned order.

4) Case of the Complainant before the District Commission in brief is that the

Complainant Sri Anindya Adhikari alleged of deficiency in providing housing

construction service on the part of the Opposite Party Smt. Subhra Majumdar one of

the partners of M/s. Fair Deel Construction and prays for relief accordingly.

5) On perusal of the documents on record it appears that in page 3 of the W/V filed

by the OP Subhra Majumadar it is stated that most of the Land Owners had died

before institution of the complaint case owing to which the power of attorney

executed in favour of the partners of M/s. Fair Deel Construction i.e. Smt. Subhra

Majumdar and Sri Kamal Ghosh Roy ceased to exist. It was further stated that the

answering Opposite Party had narrated the said fact by her engaged Ld. Advocate

Suman Mitra but in spite of having knowledge death of the Land Owners the said

matter the Complainant filed the consumer complaint.

6) Ld. District Commission also mentioned the said fact in course of referring W/V

but, however, the said issue has not been dealt with.

In such view of the matter, we are of opinion that the issue shall be dealt with by the

Ld. District Commission.

Under such premises the impugned order is set aside.

The case is remanded to the Ld. District Commission, Hooghly with a request to

deal with the issues and thereafter, to adjudicate the matter on merit in accordance

with law.

Hence, It is

O R D E R E D

That the appeal being no. FA/133/2024 is allowed in part without cost.

The case i