In  the  Court  of  the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.

CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 342/2010

1)                   Sri Prem Chand Khator and

2)                   Smt. Sarita Khater,

Both of 21A, Sultan Alam Road, P.S. Charu Market,

Dist. South 24 Parganas, Kolkata-33.                                                               ---------- Complainants

---Versus---

1)                   Smt. Jasbir Kaur,

18, Preet Nagar, Tripuri Road,

Behind Kohil Sweets, Patiala, Punjan-147001.

2)                   Smt. Vinder Kaur,

118, Hemgiri Apartmenmt, Vikas Puri, “J” Block,

Outer Ring Road, New Delhi-110018.

3)                   Smt. Iqbal Kaur,

8, Dharamtalla Street, Wachel Molla Mansion, Suit No.37,

Dist. South 24 Parganas, Kolkata-13.

4)                   Smt. Sarita Kaur,

13, Chowringhee Terrace near Gokhale Road, Kolkasta-20.

5)                   Smt. Jagjit Kaur,

Swiss Residency, 21A, Sultan Alam Road, Flat no.1A,

P.S. Charu Market, Dist. South 24 Parganas, Kolkata-33.

6)                   Sri Jaspal Singh,

25A, Sarat Bose Road, P.S. Bhowanipur,

Dist. South 24 Parganas, Kolkata-20. 

And also

Nos.1 to 6 at present residing at swiss residency,

21A, Sultan Alam Road, Flat no.1A,

P.S. Charu Market, Dist. South 24 Parganas, Kolkata-33                ---------- Owners /Opposite Parties

7)                   M/s. Puri Builders,

9/18, Ekdalia Road, Kolkata-19

P.S. Gariahat, Dist. South 24 Parganas.

8)                   Sri Vinod Puri,

168/73, Lake Garden, Kolkakata-45,

P.S. Lake Thana, Dist. South 24 Parganas.

9)                   Sri Pawan Puri,

F-2, Pubali Apartment, 16, Kalupara Lane, Kolkata-33,

P.S. Kasba, Dist. South  24 Parganas.                                      ---------- Developers /Opposite Parties          

Present :                Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.                                                                               

                                Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri ,Member

                                Smt. Sharmi Basu ,Member

Order No.   23    Dated  20-02-2013.

Sharmi Basu, Member

            In a nutshell the case of the complainant in short is that complainants entered into an agreement for sale for purchasing a flat on  27.6.02, where o.p. nos.1 to 6 are the land owners and o.p. nos.7 to 9 are the developer. The developer has necessary power of attorney and development agreement from the original land owner for developing apartment in relation to the flat in question. Complainants paid the total consideration amount and they are in possession in the suit flat. But after repeated request o.ps. did not execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainants in relation to the suit flat. Hence the complainants had no alternative but to file the instant case before this Forum for redressal of their dispute and the complainants have prayed for relief as mentioned in the complaint petition.

                O.p. no.6 and o.p. nos.7 to 9 have appeared before this Forum through their ld. counsels but other o.ps. except o.p. nos.1 to 5 have not appeared before this Forum even after valid service of notices and …………… unchallenged testimony.

                Ld. counsel for o.p. no.6 has interalia stated that the original land owner (since deceased) Late Sardar Jagat Singh Mahajan declared his wishes and decision in a well circulated newspaper dt.12.5.1999 namely “The Telegraph” stating the fact that the o.p. no.6, his son was living separately without any relation with his father i.e. Sardar Jagat Singh Mahajan and he declared that his son i.e. o.p. no.6 should not get any share or interest in any of his both moveable and unmovable properties and he also declared that he disinheritate his son i.e. o.p. no.6 from his properties.

                The ld. counsel for o.p. no.6 has also submitted that for the aforesaid reason the question of signing the documents or deed of conveyance in relation to the instant case initially or in further does not arise and has prayed for dismissal of the instant case against o.p. no.6 with cost.

                Ld. counsel for o.p. nos.7, 8, 9 (developer) has submitted that o.p. nos.7, 8 & 9 being the developer were all along ready and willing to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant in relation to the suit flat, but could not do the same due to non-cooperation on the part of the legal heirs of the original owner i.e. o.p. nos.1 to 6.

                O.p. nos.1 to 6 have prayed before this Forum to pass necessary direction to register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainants in relation to the suit flat, in default the deed of conveyance is required to be registered through the machineries of this Forum.

Decision with reasons:

                We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and it is observed by this Forum that undoubtedly that Jagat Singh Mahajan (since deceased) was the original owner of the land in relation to the premises in question and he entered into a development agreement with o.p. nos.7, 8 & 9 for developing a multistoried building on that land and power of attorney was also executed by the original land owner in favour of the complainants. Subsequently, the complainants and o.p. nos.7, 8 & 9 (developer) entered into an agreement for sale on 27.6.02 and the complainants paid Rs.14 lakhs to the developer (o.p. 7 to 9) and already complainants are in possession of a flat. In the mean time said Jagat Singh Mahajan expired leaving behind the o.p. nos.1 to 6 as his sole legal heirs. But till the date of hearing due to non-cooperation of o.p. nos.1 to 6 the deed of conveyance in respect of the suit flat has not been executed and registered in favour of the complainants.

                In this regard it is need to be mentioned that Hon’ble National Commission has already been pleased to observe that land owners and developers both are duty bound to execute and register deed of conveyance in favour of the consumer / intending purchaser and inaction to do the same tantamounts to deficiency in rendering service on the part of land owner and/or developer towards the consumer. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that in the instant case all the land owners, o.p. nos.1 to 6 are duty bound to execute and register the deed of conveyance in question in favour of the complainants and due to failure to do the same o.p. nos.1 to 6 are liable for deficiency in rendering service towards the consumers / complainants. Being developers, o.p. nos.7 to 9, after receiving the total consideration amount of the flat in question from the complainants, they can not shirk off their responsibility to take all necessary action to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainants and if it is opined by this Forum that o.p. nos.7 to 9 are also deficient in rendering service towards the consumers / complainants.

                In relation to the contention of o.p. no.6 it is our view that though original owner namely Jagat Singh Mahajan claimed to dis-inherit his son o.p. no.6 from his movable and immovable property through a notification on 12.5.1999 in a newspaper namely ‘The Telegraph’, but o.p. no.6 could not file any probated-will of his deceased from the movable and immovable property of his father namely Jagat Singh Mahajan (since deceased). Therefore, we are of the opinion that o.p. no.6 is also duty bound to take necessary action to execute and register the deed of conveyance in question.

                It is needed to be mentioned that due to delay to execute and register of the deed of conveyance without any fault of them the complainants have no alternative but to spend much more money as value of stamp duty has been increased much more within few years and obviously complainants should be compensated by all the land owners as they are completely responsible for such delay in registration of the suit flat. And this inordinate delay has also caused mental agony and harassment along with financial damages. Hence, the complainants are entitled to get relief.

                Hence, ordered,

                That the case is allowed on contest with cost against o.p. nos.6, 7, 8 and 9 and ex parte with cost against o.p. nos.1 to 5. All o.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance of the suit-flat in favour of the complainants and o.p. nos.1 to 6 are jointly and/or severally directed to pay Rs.90,000/- (rupees ninety thousand) only to the complainants as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only as litigation cost. O.p. nos.7 to 9 are jointly and/or severally directed to pay Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only as litigation cost to the complainants within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. each of o.p. nos.1 to 6 should have to pay Rs.100/- per day and o.p. nos.7 to 9 should have to pay Rs.50/- per day to the State Consumer Welfare Fund till full and final compliance of the aforesaid order.

                Complainant is at liberty to file execution case before this Forum in case of non execution of the aforesaid order in its entirety within the stipulated period under the provision of the COPRA, 1986.

                Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.