Case of the complainants in brief is that the husband of the complainant no. 1, the father of the complainants no. 2 and 3, Mr. Ranjan Kumar Shome purchased a flat by paying Rs. 3,95,000/- out of total consideration price of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the OP 1 to OP 6 (the developers) in 2008. It is stated in the petition of complaint that at the time of making payment Mr. Ranjan Shome requested the OPs to execute an agreement for sale by and between the parties and OP 1 to OP 5 assured him to execute the same at an earliest chance and accordingly the OP 1 to OP 5 handed over the possession of the said flat on 15.07.2007 in favour of Mr. Ranjan Shome. It is further stated in the petition of complaint that OPs did not hand over the copy of completion certificate and did not register the flat in favour of Mr. Ranjan Shome for which he requested the OPs to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of him but at the time of filing of this case the OPs did not do anything to that effect. The present complainants are the legal heirs of Mr. Ranjan Shome (now deceased). Finding no other alternative the complainants filed this case praying for direction upon the OPs to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainants, to bear the cost of registration by the OPs and to pay compensation and litigation cost.
OP no 3, 4 and 5 contested this case by filing written version, denying and disputing all the material allegations leveled against them, stating that no agreement has been made between the complainants and the OP 4 and OP 5 they have not taken any consideration price from the complainants. OPs have further stated that the complainant even not booked the flat in question and failed to produce any such documents before the Ld. Forum. As they did not made any promise to the complainants to provide any service as such, as per provision of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainants are not consumers under the OP 4 and OP 5. The OPs further stated that the complainants did not enter into any agreement for sale with the OPs, therefore, the complainants are not entitled to claim for the registration of the suit/flat in question and OPs are not under any obligation to provide any service in relation to the said flat. The OPs have further stated that they have no legal right to execute any deed of conveyance in relation to the flat in question because the land owners did not provide any power of attorney to the OPs/developers. The complainant is enjoying the flat in question that he got possession on 15.07.2007 but since then he remained silent about the registration of the said flat in favour of him. The OPs have further stated that the complainants have received possession of the said flat on 15.07.2007 and did not communicate with the OPs for seeking the reliefs prayed for this instant case they are not liable for this act. Accordingly, the OPs are prayed for dismissal of this case.
As the rest OPs did not file written version within statutory period, it deemed presume that the case against OPno1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9,1and11 was proceeded ex parte.
Points for determination.
- Whether the OPs are deficient in providing service to the complainants.
- Whether the complainants are entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.
Decision with reasons
Both the points are taken up together for brief discussion.
On perusal of the document available in the record it appears that the OP-developer received an amount of Rs. 4, 00,000/- from the complainant and OP-developer handed over the flat to the complainant (now deceased). The complainants alleged that the OP-developer did not execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of them. The OP- developer defended that they have already handed over the possession of the flat in question to the complainant only the registration part is required to be done but the land owners did not execute any power of attorney in favour of the developers so they have no legal right to execute the same. Since the OPs handed over the flat to the complainant and did not take initiative to register the same they are deficient in providing service to the complainants.
From the above discussion we are of the opinion that an order to execute and register the flat in question in favour of the complainants would be just and proper.
Since the OPs are deficient in registering the said flat in favour of the complainants since 2016 and compelled the complainants to file this case, they are liable to pay compensation and litigation cost.
In the result, the petition of complaint succeeds.
Hence, it is,
Ordered
that the complaint case being no. RBT/CC/340/2021 is allowed ex parte against OP no. 1,2,6,7,8,9,10,11 and is allowed contested against OP no 3, 4 and 5 with cost.
OPs are directed to execute and register the flat in question in favour of the complainants within 45days from this date of order .OPs are further directed to pay Rs 50,000/ as compensation and Rs 20,000/ as litigation cost to the complainants within 45 days from this date of order failing which the entire amount shall carry [HON'BLE MRS. Sagarika Sarkar]
MEMBER
