This complaint is filed by the Complainants u/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the OPs as the OPs did not take any step to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the flat in favour of the Complainants till filing of this complaint.

The brief fact of the case of the Complainants is that they have entered into an agreement for sale with the OPs on 22.05.2013 for purchasing a flat at the new building on the ground floor containing a super built-up area of 455 square feet more or less in the building known as “Shree Radhe Krishna Enclave” together with proportionate undivided and demarcated individual impartible share in the common areas at a total agreed consideration price of Rs.6,80,225/-. In terms of the agreement the OPs have to build the said flat within 18 months from the date of execution of the said agreement with a grace period of 06 months. The Complainant have paid the entire consideration price to the OPs and the OPs have delivered/handed over the physical possession of the flat to them on 01.01.2014 and asked the Complainants to deposit the cost and expenses for the registration of the said flat inclusive the stamp duty, registration fees and other incidental and legal charges required for execution and registration of the sale deed in respect of the suit flat in favour of them. The Complainants have asked the OPs to inform them about the cost/expenses to be incurred for the registration of the sale deed in respect of the said flat. But inspite of several verbal requests and reminders in 2014 for execution and registration of the sale deed the OPs willfully and deliberately have failed and neglected to inform them anything. By issuing a letter dated 27.01.2017 the Complainants requested the OPs to execute the sale deed and further requested to furnish the particulars of the amount of the valuation of the said flat within three days from the date of receipt of the said letter, but to no effect. It was also informed by the Complainants that they will not be liable to pay excess amount for registration cost and expenses due to escalation of market rate on account of negligence and deliberate fault on behalf of the OPs. Though the OPs have issued a letter on 14.02.2017, did not show their willingness for execution and registration of the sale deed in respect of the said flat in their favour. The Complainants have replied to the said letter on 28.02.2017 denying all the allegations contained in the letter. It was also informed by the Complainant that since 2013 the valuation of the said flat has been increased and the OPs are solely liable. Again by issuing a letter dated 31.03.2017 through the Ld. Advocate the Complainants have requested the same and it was also stated in the said legal notice that in case of default the Complainants will take legal action against the OPs and the OPs will be liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to them due to mental agony, harassment and compensation. Inspite of receipt of the said legal notice the OPs did not take any step and according to the Complainants as the OPs did not bother to take any step to register the sale deed in respect of the said flat in favour of them, such inaction of the OPs can easily be termed as deficiency in service, which caused mental agony, torture and harassment to them.  According to the Complainants as the OPs did not take any step since 2014, then the OPs are under the obligation to bear the escalated cost for the registration. As the OPs did not take step to redress their grievance till filing of this complaint, hence finding no other alternative the Complainants have approached before the Ld. DCDRF, Barasat by filing this complaint praying for direction upon the OPs for execution and registration of the deed of conveyance in respect of the flat in their favour on the market value as on 2014, to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- due to mental agony, harassment and litigation cost to them.

It is pertinent to mention herein that initially this complaint was filed before the Ld. DCDRF, Barasat. After admission hearing notices were issued to the OPs. The OP-1 filed written version, but as the OP-2 and 3 did not appear and contest the complaint inspite of receipt of the notices, hence the Ld. DCDRF, Barasat was pleased to pass an order that the complaint will run exparte against the OP-2 and 3. After adducing evidence by the Complainant the OP-2 and 3 have challenged the order dated 08.06.2018 whereby the Ld. DCDRF, Barasat was pleased to declare that the complaint will run exparte against the OP-2 and 3 before the Hon’ble SCDRC preferring the Revision Petition no-RP/127/2018. The Hon’ble SCDRC has been pleased to allow the said Revision Petition subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- payable by each of the OPs to the Consumer Legal Aid account of the DCDRF and gave liberty to file written version within seven days from the date of their appearance before the Ld. DCDRF. But the OP-2 and 3 have failed to comply with the order of the Hon’ble SCDRC and hence the Ld. DCDRF, Barasat was pleased to pass an order on 25.03.2019 that the complaint will run exparte against the OP-2 and 3. After filing questionnaire by the OP-1 the case record has been transferred to the Ld. DCDRF, Rajarhat, Newtown after establishment of this Ld. Forum (Ld. Commission as amended on 20.07.2020) in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble SCDRC.

The petition of complaint has been contested by the OP-1 by filing written version contending that the Complainants have entered into an agreement for sale with the OPs on 27.05.2013 for purchasing the flat on the ground floor having super built up area of 455 square feet more or less in the said project for the consideration along with the terms and conditions stated therein. After completion of the said building as well as the flat in question the Complainants have inspected the flat and being fully satisfied with the measurement and building materials took  due possession in the said flat on 18.01.2014. Before taking possession the OPs by issuing letter dated 01.01.2014 asked the Complainants to deposit the cost and expenses for registration of the deed of conveyance for the said flat on account of stamp duty, registration fee and other incidental and legal charges. As per the request of the Complainants the OPs have obtained query on two occasions i.e. on 23.01.2013 and 09.10.2014, but the Complainants have willfully and deliberately neglected to deposit the said charges in terms of the query for registration of the sale deed in respect of the said flat. The OPs are always ready to execute the sale deed in favour of the Complainants, but due to non-compliance of the procedure the registration could not be completed. Therefore it is crystal clear that there is no deficiency in service and or negligence on the part of the OPs, so the Complainants are not entitled to get any relief as sought for. According to the OP-1 the petition of complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

Before the Ld. Commission, Rajarhat, Newtown the Complainant filed the replies on affidavit. The OP-1 did not take part in advancing argument.

WE have carefully perused the record and documents as available; BNA filed by the Complainants and heard argument at length advanced by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant. It is seen by us that admittedly the Complainants paid a sum of Rs.6,80,225/- to the OPs for purchasing a flat from them and for this purpose the Complainants have entered into an agreement for sale with the OPs on 22.05.2013. The total consideration of the said flat was scheduled at Rs.6,80,225/- and the Complainants have paid the entire consideration amount to the OPs. It was also scheduled that the Flat will be completed within 18 months from the date of execution of the agreement for sale with a grace period of 06 months. The Complainants got physical possession in the said flat on 01.01.2014, but without any sale deed. After getting the possession in the questioned flat on several occasions the Complainants have requested the OPs  to execution and registration of the deed of conveyance in respect of the flat in their favour, but the OPs did not bother to pay any heed to their request. Being compelled the Complainants have issued legal notices to the OPs requesting to register the sale deed, but to no effect. Being frustrated with such inaction of the OPs the Complainants have filed this complaint before the Court of Law praying for direction upon the OPs to register the sale deed in their favour in respect of the suit flat along with compensation and litigation cost payable by the OPs to them.

In our considered view until and unless the registration of the sale deed in respect of the flat in favour of the purchasers/Complainants, the cause of action will continue in terms of the agreement for sale and obviously the OPs are under the obligation to execute and register the sale deed in respect of the said flat in favour of the Complainants. After completion of such contractual liability the OPs will become free. It is mentioned in the written version of the OP-1 that as per the request of the Complainants the OPs have obtained query from the Registration Office on two occasions, i.e. on 23.01.2013 and 09.10.2014. In this respect we are to say that on 23.01.2013 the Complainants did not enter into the agreement for sale with the OPs for purchasing the questioned flat, so obtaining of query on 23.01.2013 does not stand at all. It is clear to us that till date the flat of the Complainants is not registered by the sale deed in their favour, which they are very much entitled in view of the terms and conditions of the agreement for sale. It was the bounden duty of the OPs to do the same earlier. As the OPs did not bother to register the sale deed for a prolonged period since providing physical possession to the Complainants inspite of several requests, such action of the OPs certainly suffers from deficiency in service, for which the Complainants are entitled to get compensation from the OPs. We have noticed that for getting sale deed the Complainants have to run from pillar to post and at last being dissatisfied and frustrated with the action of the OPs they have come before the Court of law for redressal of their grievance. It is an admitted fact that for this proceeding the Complainants have to incur some expenses, for which the Complainants are also entitled to get litigation cost from the OPs.

Going by the foregoing discussion hence it is ordered that the Consumer Complaint being no- RBT/CC/134/2020 is hereby allowed on contest against the OP-1 with cost and allowed exparte against the OP-2 and 3 with cost. The OP-1, 2 and 3 are directed to execute and register the concerned flat in favour of the Complainants within 45 days from the date of this judgment, in default the Complainants will be at liberty to register their flat through the machinery of this Ld. Commission.

The OP-1, 2 and 3 shall pay compensation to the Complainants either jointly or severally to the tune of Rs.30,000/- within a period of 45 days from the date of this judgment along with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainants within the said specified period either jointly or severally.

Let plain copy of this judgment be given to the parties free of cost as per the CPR.   

Dictated and corrected by

[HON'BLE MRS. Silpi Majumder]
MEMBER