Dt. of filing- 18/04/2019

Dt. of Judgement- 26/02/2020

Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President.

          This consumer complaint   is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant namely Smt. Mukti  Ghosh against the Opposite Parties ( hereinafter r referred to OPs ) – (1) M/s. Lokenath  Construction (2)  Sri Sumanta Bose, (3)Sri Pradyut Sarkar, (4) Sri Usha Ranjan Samaddar ,(5) Sri  Krishnapara Samaddar, (6) Sri Chandan Samaddar, (7) Sri Kanchan Samaddar,(8) Smt. Santana Das  alleging deficiency in service on their part.

          Case of the complainant in short is  that  by an Agreement for Sale dated 25.02.2006 complainant agreed to purchase  one  self contained residential  flat  measuring  super built up  area of  360 sq.ft. approximately on the 1^st floor of building ‘D’ type at premises no. 64/8/1/144, Roypur Road  from OP No.1/ developer and the OP Nos. 4 to 8 the owners  at a consideration  of Rs. 2,60,000/-. Complainant  has paid the entire  consideration money and  OP No.1 has also delivered the possession by issuing  a possession letter dt. 20.07.2008  in favour of  complainant  and the said   possession letter it was stated that the execution  of the  sale deed shall  be made in one day along with all the purchasers  of the respective  flat after completion of the  construction work of the building  project within  6 months. Complainant since after taking the possession on 30.07.2008, has been requesting  OPs for executing and registering  the deed of sale in her favour but OP  has deliberately failed and neglected  to execute and  register sale deed. So ultimately complainant  has sent a notice  through her  Ld. Advocate to the OPs requesting for   the registration of deed  but all in vain. So, the present complaint has been filed  by the complainant praying  for directing the OPs  to execute  and register the deed of sale in favour of the complainant , to pay the  compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation  cost of Rs.  10,000/-.

 Complainant   has annexed  with the complaint,  copy of the agreement  dated 25.02.2006 , copy of the possession letter dated 20.07.2008 and the copy of notice  sent  through her Ld. Advocate and also   money receipts.

          On  perusal of the record it appears  that the notice  was sent. But no step was taken by the OPs in spite of its service  through paper publication  and thus the case  was  directed to be proceeded exparte  vide  order dated 18.09.2019.

          During the course  of the evidence, complainant filed  affidavit in chief and ultimately  argument has been  heard.

          So, only point requires determination is –

          Whether  the  complainant  is entitled  to the relief as prayed for .

Decision with reason

          In support  of her claim that  she had  agreed to purchase the flat as described in the  schedule at a consideration of Rs. 2,60,000/-,  complainant has filed the agreement  dt. 25.02.2006 wherefrom it appears  OP No.1   a partnership firm  agreed  to sell  the flat to the complainant  at a consideration   price of Rs. 2,60,000/-. It appears from the  agreement that the same is  not only signed by the OP No.1 being represented by its partners OP Nos. 2 and 3  but also by the  owner Kanchan Samaddar  as  confirming party. It appears from the agreement that a development agreement was entered into between the OP No.1 with the owners  to raise the construction  of the building  and consequent to the  same,  complainant entered into an agreement  with  OP  the developer. So, the agreement  suggest  that the OP No.1 being represented  by its  partners  OP Nos. 2 and 3  agreed to sale   the flat  to the complainant  as described in the schedule of the said agreement. Complainant has made  the payment  of the entire  consideration price . Complainant has filed money receipts.  Apart from this,  the possession letter dated  20.07.2008  also substantiates  the  payment  of consideration price because  if the payment  was due, possession would not have been handed over. In such a situation as inspite of the payment of the consideration price,  the deed  of conveyance  has not been executed in favour of the complainant in respect of the flat, complainant is entitled to the execution and registration of the deed as prayed  especially  when  there is no contrary  material forthcoming before this Forum  in order to  counter  or rebut the claim  of the complainant. However, in the  given situation of  this case, we do not find any justification  to pass an order of compensation because the  complainant  herself  sat  over the matter  since 2008 and moved the  matter  only in 2019.

Hence,

                     Ordered

          CC/231/2019  is allowed exparte. Opposite Parties are directed  to execute and register the deed of conveyance   in favour of the  complainant in respect of the flat as per  agreement dated 25.02.2006 within two months from the date of this order. They are further directed to pay  litigation  cost of Rs. 10,000/- within the  aforesaid period of two months.