Date of filing: 19/11/2019

Judgment date: 27/04/2023

Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President

This complaint is filed by the complainant namely Smt. Sohini Sircar (Majumdar) under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties (referred as OPs hereinafter) namely (1) Rani Chakraborty (2) Sri Dipak Saha and (3) Sri Ratneswar Dutta (OP 2 & 3 are the partners of M/s. United Construction) alleging deficiency in rendering of service on the part of OPs.

Case of the complainant in short is that by an agreement for sale entered into between the mother of the complainant (since deceased) namely Kalyani Sircar with the predecessor in interest of OP 1 in October 2004, she agreed to purchase a flat at a total consideration price of Rs. 4,75,000/-. Entire consideration money was paid by mother of the complainant. The possession of the flat was handed over to the said mother of the complainant (since deceased). But deed of conveyance has not been executed. Predecessor in interest of OP No. 1 namely Binoy Ranjan Chakraborty had entered into an agreement with OP 2 & 3 being the developers to develop the property. The mother of the complainant Kalyani Sircar died on 25/09/2012 leaving behind complainant as daughter and husband of the said Kalyani Sircar namely Sunirmal Sircar. Subsequently said Sunirmal Sircar also died on 22/12/2017. So the complainant is sole legal heir. In spite of repeated request OPs being owner and the developers did not execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant and thus 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 hand over the completion certificate to pay sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- as compensation and to pay litigation cost of Rs. 25,000/-.

OP 1 has contested the case by filing written version denying and disputing the allegation contending specifically that she had requested time and again to the mother of the complainant for registration of deed of conveyance but she was reluctant to do so and even complainant evaded the responsibilities. It is further submitted that the OP No. 1 still ready and willing to complete the registration work of the sale deed in favour of the complainant if she is the only legal heir of the said Kalyani Sircar (since deceased). So OP 1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

OP 2 & 3 did not turn up on service of notice and thus case has been heard exparte against them.

During the course of the evidence complainant filed examination in chief on affidavit. However OP 1 did not take any step after filing written version and thus ultimately the argument has been heard on behalf of the complainant, as during argument also contesting OP 1 did not take any step.

So the only point requires determination is whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASON

In support of her claim, complainant has filed the copy of the agreement for sale wherefrom it appears, the agreement was entered into between Kalyani Sircar predecessor in interest of the complainant and Benoy Ranjan Chakraborty predecessor in interest of OP 1 whereby the predecessor in interest of OP 1 being the owner agreed to sell a flat to the said Kalyani Sircar described in the Schedule ‘B’ of the agreement at a total consideration price of Rs. 4,75,000/-. On a careful scrutiny of written version filed by the OP 1 it appears that the payment of the entire consideration price by said Kalyani Sircar (since deceased) has not been denied. OP 1 has also not denied about the execution of the said agreement and that the deed of conveyance has not been executed and registered in favour of either Kalyani Sircar (since deceased) or in favour of complainant. However, it may be pertinent to point out that OP 1 tried to suggest that complainant is not the only legal heir but has not stated whether the said Kalyani Sircar died leaving behind any other son and daughter apart from the complainant. Admittedly the husband of the said Kalyani Sircar died in the year 2017 and to this effect copy of the death certificate of the said Sunirmal Sircar is filed. Complainant in the complaint as well as in the brief notes of argument filed before this commission, has categorically stated that after the death of Kalyani Sircar and Sunirmal Sircar, her parents, she is their sole legal heir. Since before this Commission there is absolutely no contrary material that there is no other legal heir barring the complainant, complainant is entitled to the execution and registration of the deed in respect of the schedule ‘B’ property in the agreement. However, since it is evident that the mother of the complainant as well as the complainant herself did not take any step since after the possession was delivered and they remained silent, we find no justification to pass any order as to compensation as prayed by the complainant. So OP 1 is liable to execute and register the deed in favour of the complainant. However as apparently the agreement for sale was entered into between the owner and the Kalyani Sircar as purchaser and OP 2 & 3 were not party to the said agreement, the case is liable to be dismissed against OP 2 & 3.

Hence,

             ORDERED

CC/591/2019 is allowed on contest against OP 1 but dismissed exparte against OP 2 & 3. OP 1 is directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant in respect of Schedule ‘B’ property as per agreement entered into in October 2004 between Benoy Ranjan Chakraborty and Kalyani Sircar, within two months from this date.