This is a case U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the complainants, Smt. Jaba Chatterjee & Smt. Sujata Chatterjee praying direction upon the opposite parties as prayed in the prayer portion of the complaint petition.

     The case of the complainant’s in short is that O.P. No.1 is a Partnership Firm, especially develops flat and apartment and the O.P. No.2 is the partner of the O.P. No.1.  The O.P. No.3 & 4 are the land owners/vendors in respect of 14, P.L. Shome Street, R.S. Plot no.900/4264 under Mouza-Bhadrakali, P.O.-Bhadrakali, P.S.-Uttarpara, Dist.-Hooghly, Pin-712232, measuring about 10 Cottahs more or less.

     That one agreement was executed between O.P. No.1 and O.P. Nos.3 & 4 on 27.9.2004 and on the basis of the said agreement, the Vendors i.e. O.P. No.3 & 4 also executed a general power of attorney on 17.1.2005 in favour of the O.P. No.2.  On the basis of the said agreement and as well as the general power of attorney the O.P. No.2 completed a multistoried building and Uttarpara Kotrung Municipality has duly issued a sanctioned building plan.

   That one agreement for sale dated 26.8.2008 was executed amongst O.ps. and the complainants, subsequently the O.Ps. herein being the vendors and developers have agreed to complete the execution of the deed of conveyance with the complainants within 120 days or 4 months from the date of signing of that agreement and complainants have duly paid the sum of Rs.9,60,000/- as the total consideration money of the flat to the O.P. No.2 and O.P. No.2 has duly handed over the possession of the said flat No.402 in Block-B, measuring 1316 Sq ft super built up area.

  Thereafter the complainants severally requested to the O.Ps. to register the deed of conveyance in respect of the said flat in favour of the complainants.  But O.Ps. kept silent without any reason. The complainants sent a legal notice to the O.Ps. on 3.7.2017 but till date no steps has been taken for that.  The O.P. No.3 & 4 by a reply of the demand notice dated 3.7.2017 stated that without the clearing of the dues by the promoter towards the vendors, the vendors are unable to register the said flat. 

   Finding no other alternative the complainant filed this case before this Forum for relief with a prayer to direct the O.Ps. to execute and register the deed of sale in respect of the said flat and to pay litigation cost & compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

    The O.P. No.1 & 2 contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as leveled against them.  These O.Ps. stated that land owner i.e. O.P. No.3 & 4 are very greedy persons.  They have already received entire consideration money from the other O.P.  but they most wrongfully and illegally refused to execute any transferable deed to the petitioners and others. The present answering OPs are/ were ready and willing to execute any deed.

  Despite receiving notice the O.P. no.3 & 4 did not turn up and filed no written version so, the proceeding run exparte against them vide order No.4 dated 22.12.2017.

From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.

ISSUES/POINTS   FOR   CONSIDERATION

1). Whether the Complainant Smt. Jaba Chatterjee & Smt. Sujata Chatterjee, are the consumers’ of the opposite parties?

2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

3).Whether the O.Ps carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainants?

4).Whether the complainants proved their case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to them?

DECISION WITH REASONS

             In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.

(1).Whether the Complainant Smt. Jaba Chatterjee & Smt. Sujata Chatterjee, are consumers’ of the opposite party?

         From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainants are “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The complainants herein is the consumer of the OP, as the complainants being the intending purchaser paid consideration money and possessing the schedule mentioned flat so they are entitled to get service from the OP, as opposite party is the service provider.

(2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

         Both the complainant and opposite parties are residents/having office address within the district of Hooghly. The complaint valued Rs.50,000/- for  litigation cost and as compensation for mental pain & agony and other expenses ad valorem which is within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.

 (3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

            The case of the complainants is that one development agreement was executed between the opposite party No.1 and opposite party Nos 3&4 on 27.09.2004 and on the basis of the said development agreement the vendors i.e. Nabin Banik and Sandya Banik opposite party No.3&4 herein also executed a General Power attorney on 17.01.2005 in favour of the OP no.2. On the basis of the agreement the OP no.2 constructed a multistoried building after sanctioning plan from Uttarpara Kotrung Municipality. Thereafter an agreement dated 26.08.2008 was executed amongst opposite parties and the complainants being the landowners and the developers have agreed to complete the execution of the deed of conveyance with complainants within 120 days from the date of agreement and the complainants already paid a sum of Rs.9,60,000/- as the total consideration money to the opposite party No.2 and the opposite party no.2 already handed over the possession of the flat to the complainants. The complainants several times requested the opposite parties to execute and register the flat but the opposite party remained silent for which these complainants getting no alternative filed the instant case before this Forum praying direction upon the opposite parties to execute and register the flat alongwith litigation cost and compensation amounting to Rs.50,000/-. The complainants in their written notes of argument averred that during pendency of the complaint petition a discussion in between the complainants and the opposite party no.2 took place as a result the opposite party no.2 agreed to register the flat in favour of the complainants so these complainants prayed before this Forum to waive the litigation cost and the compensation. The complainants only prayed before this Forum a direction upon the opposite party No.1&2 to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainants within a reasonable time. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the opposite party during the period of argument submitted that the opposite party is in consonance with the written notes of argument of the complainants and agreed to execute and register the schedule mentioned flat in favour of the complainants and he further assailed that the complainants are in possession, so this forum may direct the opposite party no.2 to execute and register the said flat in favour of the complainants without imposing compensation and litigation cost.

  So from the above discussion this Forum is in the opinion that the complaint petition succeed on contest without any litigation cost and compensation.

    Going by the foregoing discussion hence it is ordered that the complainants abled to prove the deficiency of service of the opposite party for non execution & registration of the impugned flat by adducing cogent document/evidence so the prayer of the complainants is allowed in part. However considering the facts and circumstances there is no order as to cost. With the abovementioned observation the complaint is thus disposed of accordingly.

4). Whether the complainants proved their case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to them?

  The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainants abled to prove the deficiency of service of the opposite party in respect of non execution & registration of deed of conveyance. As the complainants by filing written notes of argument stated that as the opposite party agreed to execute & register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainants so they would like to waive the cost and compensation for which this Forum allowed the prayer of complainants without cost & compensation.

ORDER

     Hence, ordered that the complaint case being No.174/2017 be and the same is allowed on contest against the opposite party, without litigation cost.

   The Opposite Party No. 2 is directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainants within 45 days from the date of passing this order otherwise the complainants may get the deed executed through the machinery of this Forum.

    At the event of failure to comply with the order the Opposite Party no.2 shall pay cost @ Rs.50/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any, in the  Consumer legal Aid Account.

    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 & necessary action.