FEMCO PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPMENT Vs. SAKTI PADO GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition was preferred by petitioners against the order dated 9th February, 2004 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 229 of 2004, whereby and whereunder the revision petition preferred by petitioner against the order dated 20th November, 2003 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi in Appeal No. 510 of 2003 was dismissed. The appeal aforesaid was preferred against the order dated 30th August, 2003 passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Jamshedpur in Complaint No. 123 of 2002, whereby and whereunder the petitioners were directed to pay an amount of Rs. 4,04,000.00 to the respondent with 9% interest from 7th September, 1999 till payment in full and a sum of Rs. 35,000.00 towards mental agony and Rs. 5000.00 towards litigation cost.

(2.) WHEN the case was taken up on 2nd February, 2005, this Court having noticed the agreement reached between the parties and the statement made before the Court, recorded the following order : Mr. I. Sinha, counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, submits that the petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lacs in favour of respondent, Shri Shakti Pado Ghosh, if the said respondent vacates the flat in which he is residing and relinquishes his other right. Counsel for the respondent, Shri Shakti Pado Ghosh, on instructions, submits that the respondent is ready to vacate the flat within one or two months, if a sum of Rs. 5 lacs is paid to him by the petitioners. In such case, he will not make any claim, if any order is passed by any authority. The parties are directed to file their respective affidavits and state as to how the criminal case lodged by one or other party will come to an end. Place this case 'FOR ORDERS ' on 21st FEBRUARY, 2005.

(3.) ON 22nd November, 2005, when the case was taken up, Mr. Ajit Kumar, counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent, Shri Shakti Pado Ghosh has vacated the flat, in question, and he handed over the key of the flat to Mr. Indrajit Sinha, counsel for the petitioners. Today (29.11.2005), Mr. Indrajit Sinha, counsel for the petitioners informed that the petitioners have taken vacant possession of the flat, in question but no step has been taken by the respondent to withdraw the criminal cases.