This is a complaint made by Shanti Prasad Chatterjee son of Late T. P. Chatterjee residing at Flat No.7G Tower Windsor, Merlin Residency, 26, Prince Anwar Shah Road, Kolkata-700 033 and Swapna Chatterjee wife of Shanti Prasad Chatterjee residing at Flat No.7G, Tower-Windsor, Merlin Residency. 26, Prince Anwar Shah Road, Kolkata- 700 033 against Merlin Projects Limited having its office at 22, Prince Anwar Shah Road, Kolkata- 700 033 praying for claim of Rs.10,00,000/- against the OP along interest of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint, handing over of the original Deed of Conveyance pertaining to flat No.7G, Merlin Residency, 26, Prince Anwar Shah Road, Kolkata- 700 033. Alternatively the certified copy of the Deed of Conveyance pertaining to the Flat No.7G being Annexure ‘C’ to be certified original Deed of Conveyance.

            Facts, in brief, are that Complainant No.1 is a retired person and Complainant No.2 is wife of Complainant No.1 by occupation House Wife. OP is well known developer having its presence throughout India. Complainant had purchased a flat being flat No.7G on the 7^th Floor, Tower-Windsor together with one open car park on the ground floor of the complex commonly known as “Merlin Residency”. The Deed of Conveyance executed on 30^th June, 2004. On 30^th June, 2004 Complainant at the insistence of the OP went to the office of OP at 79, Sambhunath Pandit Street, Kolkata-700 020 for the purpose of execution of the Deed of Conveyance. Complainant paid the stamp duty, registration fee even other legal expenses. Upon execution of the Deed of Conveyance original IGR kept by the OP and possession of the said flat was made over to the Complainants. OP represented to the Complainants that OP shall cause the original Deed of Conveyance to be collected by its representative from the concerned Registry Office.Complainants having no reason to disbelieve of handing over original IGR to the OP. Thereafter, OP failed and/or neglected to hand over the original Deed of Conveyance. It is noteworthy that Complainant went to England after handing over IGR to the OP. Complainants authorized his nephew Debasis Banerjee to collect the original Deed of Conveyance pertaining to the said flat. Despite repeated visit to the office of the OP by Debasis Banerjee failed to collect the original Deed of Conveyance. Complainants came down to India on 2015 and went to the office of OP. They went on 26^th February, 2015 for the original Deed of Conveyance but they did not get the original Deed. So, through their Ld. Advocate sent notice for original Deed of Conveyance but of no use. So Complainant filed this case. OP filed written version and denied the allegation of the complaint. It is stated in the written version that the Forum has no jurisdiction to decide this case. Further they have specifically denied all the allegation made by the Complainant. OP further has stated that after expiry of IGR for execution of Deed of Conveyance Complainant came to them. Further, they have stated that representative of the Complainant took the Registered Deed in 2012. They also stated that complaint is barred by law of limitation.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant has filed affidavit-in-chief wherein he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition. Against this OP has filed questionnaire. Complainant has filed reply against questionnaire of the OP. Thereafter, Complainant has filed reply to the questionnaire. None of the parties has filed written argument.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainants are entitled to reliefs as prayed for in the complaint petition.

       On perusal of the affidavit-in-chief it appears that one Debasis Banerjee has signed this affidavit-in-chief though he is not Complainant. In our view this affidavit-in-chief which has been signed by Debasis Banerjee cannot be accepted because his name does not appear as any of the Complainant. Further, no petition has been filed to establish that Debasis Banerjee is the authorized agent on behalf of the Complainant. Further, it appears that the dispute is that OP has stated that representative Debasis Banerjee took the Deed of Conveyance whereas Complainant denied it. Though Debasis Banerjee has filed affidavit-in-chief but that cannot strengthen the case of the Complainant that Debasis Banerjee did not take the Deed of Conveyance.

            The registration of the Deed was made in 2004 as per in the complaint. This case has been filed in 2016 i.e. after about 12 years. Any party going to England or America cannot take the advantage of extension of time filing the consumer complaint as provide in Consumer Protection Act. There is no explanation as to why the complaint was filed at a belated stage. It cannot be believed that if Debasis Banerjee authorized to receive the Deed, he might be informed. Complainant stated about non-receipt of the Deed and in that event complaint would be filed within time which has not been done.

            Further, it is of common prudence that any party even in hand over the original IGR he would keep the Xerox copy with him. No Xerox copy of the IGR is forthcoming. So we find that Complainant’s prayer for direction upon OP for handing over the Deed of Conveyance of flat cannot be allowed. Further, Complainant have made a claim of Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint. There is no material to establish as to why this claim has been made and for what purpose. Similarly, Complainant has prayed before this Forum for certificate of Annexure ‘C’ which is Xerox copy of the alleged Deed of Conveyance. We are afraid that this Forum has jurisdiction to make such certificate and Complainant is not a consumer and Consumer Forum is not a service provider that such prayer has been made. Such conduct of the Complainant appears to be baseless. In the facts and circumstances we find that there is no ground to allow the prayers of Complainant

            Hence,

O R D E R E D

            CC/142/2016 and the same is dismissed on contest.