Date of filing: 28.01.2020
Judgment date: 22.12.2022
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President
This consumer complaint is filed by the complainant Shri Amit Kr. Roy against opposite parties (referred as O.P.s hereinafter) namely (1) M/s. EIKON Creators Pvt. Ltd. (2) Shri K. Sengupta, Director of EIKON Creators Pvt. Ltd (3) Shri C.S. Banerjee, Director of M/s. EICON Creators Pvt. Ltd. and (4) Smt. Bimala Bakshi alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
The case of the complaint in short is that O.P. No. 1,2,3 being the developer and constituted attorney of O.P No. 4 being the owner of premises no. 176/14/179 entered into an agreement for sale with the complainant in respect of a flat measuring about 880 sq. ft. on the 4th floor of the building at a total consideration of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The agreement for sale was entered into between the parties on 19/01/2000. Complainant has paid the entire consideration amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the developer O.P. 1,2,3, and the possession of the flat has also been handed over to the complainant but deed of conveyance has not been executed in favour of the complainant by the opposite parties in spite of the repeated request and thus the present complaint has been filed praying for directing the opposite parties to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant, to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/-
On perusal of the record it appears that notices were sent and O.P. No. 2 had also entered appearance through his Ld. Advocate on 06/03/2020. But in spite of repeated opportunity given, written version was not filed by him. Similarly O.P. 1, 3 & 4 also did not taken any step in spite of the publication of notice in widely circulated newspaper and thus ultimately the case came-up for exparte hearing.
So the only point required determination is whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASON
In support of his claim that he purchased the flat by an agreement for sale dated 19/01/2000, Complainant has filed the said agreement for sale and also the copy of possession letter as well as the money receipts showing the payment of the consideration price to the O.P. developers. It is evident from the agreement dated 19/01/2000 that the O.P. No. 1 being represented by its director and also as constituted attorney of the owner namely Lt. Col. Pranab Kumar Baxi who was the predecessor in interest of O.P. No. 4, agreed to sale a flat measuring more or less 880 sq. ft. on the 4th floor being flat no. 4A at a consideration of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The money receipt filed by the complainant reveals that the complainant has paid the entire consideration price and the same is also substantiated from the letter of possession dated 12/05/2000 issued by the O.P. developer in favour of the complainant. If there was any due to be paid there must have been some reflection in the said possession letter. But there is no such mention about any dues. So as per terms of the agreement entered into between the parties even though possession has been delivered but the deed of conveyance as per the terms in Para 7 of the agreement has not been executed in favour of the complainant and as before this commission there is absolutely no contrary material to counter or rebut the claim of the complainant, complainant is entitled to the relief of directing the O.P.s to execute and register the deed of conveyance. However we find no justification to allow the compensation or cost of litigation as its apparent that the complainant himself also chose to remain silent after getting the possession and this case has only been filed in the year 2020.
Hence,
ORDERED
CC/34/2020 is allowed exparte. O.P.s are directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the flat as per agreement dated 19/01/2000 in favour of the complainant within two months from this date.
