The fact of the case of the complainant in a nutshell is that the complainant entered into an agreement for purchase of a flat measuring more or less 571 sq.ft. , being flat no.G-2, on the ground floor of Kaustav Ap[artment at 35, B.B.D.Road, P.O. Hindmotor, Hooghly with the oP no.1 and paid the full consideration money of Rs.5,50,000/-  to the oP no.1 . The oP no.1 also gave possession of the flat to the complainant on 19.8.2012. The further case of the complainant is that after giving possession of the flat , he time and again requested the OP to register a Deed of Conveyance of the flat in question in favour of the complainant but the oP till date has not yet registered Deed of conveyance of the flat in question  in favour of the complainant. Hence, this complaint filed by the complainant praying relief as defined in the prayer portion of the complaint.

             The Ops have filed Written version denying inter alia all material allegations of the complainant. The Ops have presented positive case that the complainant previously made agreement with another firm represented by Kalyan Mazumder . After that , the complainant cancelled and revoked the Development agreement and General Power of Attorney . Thereafter they have made agreement with these Ops . These Ops have paid Rs.3,50,000/- to Kalyan Mazumder .

            On 16.10.2012 the complainant with some malafide intention and ulterior motive revoked the previous power of attorney dated 7.1.2011 given to Srijit Mukherjee for which the

development project has been hampered for which the Ops failed to sold out the flats and unable to keep the commitment to the complainant and other purchasers. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the ops . As such, the case should be dismissed as it is devoid of any merits.

            Complainant has filed Xerox copy of Development agreement and Power of attorney. Op filed no documents

            POINTS FOR DECISION  

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer ?                                             
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oP ?
3. Whether the complainant/petitioner is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?

DECISION WITH REASONS:

 All the points are taken together for easiness of discussion.

         Admittedly, the complainant is a consumer under the oP. There is no dispute on this point. There is no dispute that till this date the oP no.1 did not make registration of flat to the complainant because the Op no.1 categorically admitted in Written version para 16 that “Op undertake to comply the conditions in accordance with the agreement executed by and between the complainant and themselves subject o restoration of revoked Power of Attorney by the oP no.2 “. So, this admission of the oP itself shows that the allegation of the complainant

due to not registration of flat cannot be disbelieved which he is legally entitled to get i.e.he is entitled to get relief as per prayer. After deliberation over the case of both sides it is –

                                                                       Ordered

        That the CC no. 151 of 2016 is allowed on contest. The oP no.1 is directed to execute and register the sale deed in terms of the agreement in favour of the complainant in respect of the schedule flat. The OP is directed to give compensation to the complainant of Rs.25,000/- for his mental agony , harassment and pain. The oP is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost to the complainant.

        The Op is directed to comply the above orders within 45 days from the date of this order i.d. Rs.200/- per day shall be paid by the OP and that amount will be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Fund , till full realisation.

       Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.