Date of filing: 23/04/2018                                       

Date of Judgment: 30/01/2023

Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President.

This complaint is filed by the complainant Smt. Mira De under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (referred as O.P.s hereinafter) namely (1) Anil Kumar Dutta, (2) Animesh Kumar Dutta, (3) Debi Sankar Das and (4) Shib Sankar Das alleging deficiency in rendering services on the part of the O.P.s.

Case of the complainant in short is that a development agreement was entered into between O.P., the developer and O.P. 3 & 4 the owner to construct a multi storied building. Thereafter by an agreement of sale dated 15.10.2004 O.P. No. 1 the developer agreed to sell a flat measuring 500 sq. ft. with two bathrooms of which one fully constructed and another partly constructed, to the complainant. Complainant paid the entire settled consideration price of Rs. 4,50,000/- to O.P. No. 1 and the possession was handed over to the complainant on 26.05.2005. But since after the date of handing over of the possession, O.P. No. 1 has been neglecting and avoiding the registration. In the year 2013 O.P. No. 1 told the complainant that his son (O.P. No. 2) would complete the registration. Thereafter O.P. No. 2 sent a notice dated 04.07.2013 to the complainant asking her to attend the meeting and in the meeting O.P. 2 demanded initial cost of Rs. 55,000/- to prepare the sale deed. Complainant paid the said sum on 04.09.2013 in presence of O.P. No. 1 and thereafter she paid total sum of Rs. 2,19,000/- to O.P. No. 1 & 2 for the registration. But no registration has been done. O.P. No. 1 & 2 have also raised unauthorised construction in ground floor covering common space. Complainant sent demand notice dated 07.07.2015 to the O.P.s to complete the registration of the sale deed in her favour in respect of the flat in question. But since it has not been done, present complaint is filed by the complainant praying for directing the O.P.s to complete the registration of the sale deed, to return extra amount of Rs. 2,19,000/- along with interest, to pay compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- and to handover sanction plan and the completion certificate.

On perusal of the record it appears in spite of service of notice, no step was taken by the OPs and thus case was directed to be proceeded exparte. However O.P. No. 3&4 challenged the order of exparte hearing before the Hon’ble State Commission and Hon’ble State Commission by order dated 25.09.2019, allowed the revision filed by O.P. 3 & 4 giving opportunity to O.P. 3 & 4 to file the written version but subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant. But O.P. 3 & 4 neither paid the cost nor filed any written version and thus again case came up for exparte hearing.

So only point requires determination is whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASON

In support of her case, complainant has filed the agreement for sale dated 15.10.2004 and the money receipts. Admittedly complainant has been handed over the possession of the flat in question as per agreement. The registration of sale deed however has not been done in favour of the complainant in respect of the flat. According to the complainant, O.P. 1 & 2 have collected total sum of Rs. 2,19,000/- from the complainant between the period from 04.09.2013 to 27.01.2014 in the name of registration of the deed but deed has not been executed and registered in her favour.

It is evident from the agreement for sale dated 15.10.2004 filed by the complainant that complainant paid the entire consideration price of Rs. 4,50,000/- to the O.P. No. 1 and thereafter the possession has been delivered to the complainant by O.P. No. 1 on 25.06.2005.

Money receipts filed by the complainant issued by O.P. No. 2 dated 04.09.2013, 01.10.2013, 26.11.2013 and 27.01.2014 establishes her claim that a total sum of Rs. 2,19,000/- was taken by O.P. No. 2 for the purpose of registration. Same is also substantiated from the letter dated 04.07.2013 sent by O.P. No. 2 to the complainant to attend a meeting on 10.07.2013 to discuss the steps to be taken for registration of the flats. It is the specific case of the complainant that O.P. No. 1 had informed that his son O.P. 2 would take the steps to complete registration of the sale deed. So it is well established that in spite of payment of Rs. 2,19,000/-, O.P. 1 & 2 did not complete the registration of the sale deed and thus complainant is not only entitled to the execution and registration of the deed of conveyance but also entitled to return of the sum of Rs. 2,19,000/- from O.P. No. 1 & 2, especially when before this commission, no contrary material is forthcoming to the counter the claim of the complainant. Complainant is further entitled to compensation for the harassment and mental agony suffered by her and also as she will have to pay the cost of registration as per the present market value.

Hence,

            ORDERED

CC/216/2018 is allowed exparte. Opposite Party No. 1 and O.P. No. 3 and 4 are directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the flat in favour of the complainant as per agreement dated 15.10.2004 within two months from this date.

O.P. No. 1 & 2 are directed to refund sum of Rs. 2,19,000/- to the complainant and to pay a further sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- within the aforesaid period of two months. In default of payment entire sum shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. till realisation.