Sankar Kumar Ghosh,  Hon’ble President.

            This case has been filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant that on 1.9.2015 the complainant entered into an agreement for sale in respect of purchase of a residential flat having an area of 629 sq.ft.(including 20% super built up area) with the opposite parties and it was agreed that the purchase rate of the said flat along with the proportionate share of common portion stands the total consideration of the said flat of Rs. 12,00,000/- only out of which Rs. 7,00,000/- is to be paid first as advance amount and the residue of the purchase price shall be paid after the execution of the sale deed and the purchase shall be completed within one month from the date of the said agreement for sale and the complainant has paid the advance amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- to the opposite parties by way of two cheques being nos. 525877 and 525878 of SBI and the complainant further pays another Rs. 4,50,000/- to the opposite parties on different dates by way of cheques upon which the opposite parties issued receipts and it was agreed that the purchase after simultaneously registering the deed of sale and giving possession of that schedule flat shall be completed with one month from the date of the agreement after completing all the works and till now the complainant has already made payment of Rs. 11,50, 000/- to the opposite parties and the opposite parties have also charged Rs. 40,000/- for the extra work done which was paid by the complainant and the opposite parties issue receipt upon the pad of “Build Con Rainbow” and after the expiry of the stipulated time the opposite parties did not complete the works of the said flat rather took time on various pleas and pretexts to complete the same and the complainant after waiting for a considerable period created pressure upon the opposite parties for completing the flat and handing over the possession to him and the opposite parties upon such pressure somehow completed the flat in hasty manner and gave possession to the complainant on 22.07.2016 with the assurance that the deed of conveyance shall be registered and executed within a short span of time, but the opposite parties have still left one bath room pending not applied any white cement in the tiles, kept the electric board incomplete, there is no kitchen work and the opposite parties left the work in the living area of the bath room rather asked the complainant to do the work at his own cost and the opposite parties made two types of white wash and also did not give any bill for the extra work done and after waiting for a considerable period the complainant once again approached the opposite party to get registration by signing the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant and the opposite party assured the complainant to get the registration of the said flat within three months and after the expiry of three months the complainant once again on 2.5.2018 requested the opposite parties to get the registration of the said flat, but the they paid no heed to the said issue and having no response from the opposite party the complainant sent a legal notice through his Advocate on 14.6.2018 requesting opposite parties to get the registration of the said flat in their favour by taking the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- and making necessary arrangement for registration and signing on the deed of conveyance within 15 days from the receipt of this notice otherwise the complainants will be at liberty to set the law in motion against the opposite parties. The cause of action of this case arose on and from 2.5.2018 at the first instance after the expiry of three months and it aggravated on 14.6.2018 and is still continuing.

            Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite party to assist for registration of the flat measuring 629 sq.ft. immediately in favour of complainants and to pay sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as negligence and harassment and to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost.

            The opposite party Nos. 1 contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as levelled against him and have prayed for dismissal of the instant case. 

The opposite party Nos. 2, 3 and 4 also contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as levelled against him and have prayed for dismissal of the instant case. 

            It may be noted that upon the prayer of complainant in respect of appointment of ld. Advocate Commissioner for local inspection relating to the property in question. Accordingly, concerned ld. Advocate Commissioner inspected the place of inspection and also prepared field notes and ultimately filed final report in respect of local inspection. Opposite parties file affidavit in opposition against the final report submitted by ld. Advocate Commissioner. Ultimately, vide order dt. 17.10.2019 of this Commission, this Commission has accepted the final report of ld. Advocate commissioner as well as affidavit in opposition of the opposite parties.

            The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but a replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite parties.

            The answering opposite parties filed evidence on affidavit which   transpires the averments of the written version. So, it is needless to discuss. 

                        Complainant and opposite parties filed written notes of argument. The evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of both sides are taken into consideration for passing final order.

            Argument as advanced by the agents of the complainant and the opposite parties heard in full.

            From the discussion herein above, we find the following issues/points for consideration.

Issues/points for consideration

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties or not?
2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or not?

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

All the points are taken up together for easiness of the discussions of this case.

1. In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainants are Consumers as provided by the spirit of Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the complainant herein is a consumers of the opposite parties.
2. Both the complainants and the opposite parties are resident/having their office addresses within the district of Hooghly. Considering the nature of claim as per prayer of the petition of the complaint of the complainant it appears that those are not exceeding Rs. 20,00,000/. So, this Forum has territorial /pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try this case.
3. First of all it may be pointed out that complainant in his petition of complaint has clearly stated that he has already made payment of Rs. 7,00,000/- to the opposite parties  as advance and thereafter has paid Rs. 11,50,000/- to the opposite parties and opposite parties have also charged Rs. 40,000/- for extra work done which was paid by the complainant to the opposite parties.

Actually it was agreed in between the parties that the purchase rate of the flat in question with proportionate share of common portion stands the total consideration of Rs. 12,00,000/- and the flat in question is an area of 629 sq.ft. In support of his contention complainant by his evidence on affidavit has made a clear assertion regarding the above payment in respect of the flat in question to the opposite parties. That apart complainant filed photocopy of agreement for sale.

Opposite party no. 1 and opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 in their written version though denied the material allegations of complainant as incorporated in the petition of complaint but could not succeed to bypass of receiving such payment. That apart non filing of evidence on affidavit by the opposite parties by itself goes to indicate clearly that their allegations as they made out in written versions are not conclusive and reliable as there is no evidence to that effect.

Further, it may be noted that the final report of the ld. Commissioner in respect of local inspection of the property in question will speak a volume in favour of the complainant case whereas though by filing affidavit on opposition against final report submitted by ld. Advocate Commissioner relating to Local inspection appears to be an objection for the objection sake and such affidavit in opposition of opposite parties will not come out any help relating to the defense case of the opposite parties. Therefore, from the above discussion it is crystal clear that the complainant has succeeded in proving his case.

4. In view of the above discussion we are harboring to the conclusion that complainant has succeeded in proving his case and as such he is entitled to have reliefs as prayed for.

Hence,

it is

ordered

that the complaint case being no. 101 of 2018 be and the same is allowed on contest against opposite parties with cost.

          The opposite parties are directed to assist for registration of the flat in question measuring about 629 sq.ft. morefully described in the schedule of the petition of the complaint within two months of the date of this order without fail.

            The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- complainant  as damages for their negligence and causing harassment including for causing mental agony to the complainant within two months from the date of order without fail.

            The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within two months from the date of this order without fail.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.