Date of Filing: 15.10.2020

Date of Judgment: 30.05.2022  

Mrs.  Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble  President

This complaint is filed by the complainant , Smt. Madhumita Roy, under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties ( referred to as O.Ps hereinafter) namely 1) Smt. Suvra Dutta  and 2) Goutam Kumar Dutta ,  alleging deficiency in service  on the part of the O.Ps.

The case of the complainant in short is that the O.P, land owner, of the property in question decided to raise construction by themselves and accordingly obtained Building Sanctioned Plan from the KMC. On being approached by the complainant, the O.Ps agreed to sell a self contained flat being no.3 on the second floor backside of the said premises at a consideration of Rs. 10,03,000/- only. An agreement for sale was executed between the parties on 18.7.2006. Complainant paid Rs.  1 lac at the time of signing of the agreement and remaining Rs. 9,03,200/- was also paid subsequently. The possession has already been handed over to the complainant. But inspite of making payment of the entire consideration price, the deed of sale has not been executed in favour of the complainant and thus the present complaint has been filed by the complainant for directing the O.Ps to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant in respect of the flat in question , to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1lac for harassment and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-.

On perusal of the record it appears that inspite of service of notice since the O.Ps did not take any step, the case was directed to be proceeded exparte.

The complainant has filed affidavit-in-chief during the course of the trial in support of her claim and has also filed the documents such as agreement for sale and money receipts.

So, the only points requires determination is whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.

Decision with reasons

In order to substantiate her claim that an agreement for sale was entered into between the complainant and the O.P in respect of the sale of the subject flat as described in the schedule of the complaint as well as the schedule B of the agreement, the complainant has filed the said agreement entered into between the parties on 18.7.2006 , wherefrom it appears that complainant agreed to purchase the flat as described in the schedule B at a consideration of Rs. 10,03,200/- . It also appears from the agreement that an amount of Rs. 1 lac was paid by the complainant through cheque at the time of agreement and the rest amount was to be paid as per schedule mentioned in the agreement. According to the complainant she has made the payment of the entire consideration amount and she has also filed the money receipts . She has also claimed that with regard to the payment of an amount of Rs. 1,06,901/- the O.P did not issue the money receipts. On perusal of the money receipts it appears that it consists of a payment of Rs. 8,96,298/- However, one money receipt is in the name of one Sanjoy Saha . But how he is related to the complainant has  not been stated by the complainant. It has already been highlighted above that the matter has been heard exparte. The payment schedule as described in the agreement indicates that the entire payment of the consideration price was to be made before delivery of possession. It has been claimed by the complainant that she has already been delivered possession and she is in possession of the subject flat and in order to show her possession she has also filed electricity bill. Since before this Commission  there is absolutely no contrary material to negate the case of the complainant or that there is any due to be paid by the complainant, on consideration of the agreement entered into between the parties since no deed of conveyance has been executed in favour of the complainant, she is entitled to the execution and registration of the deed of conveyance in her favour in respect of the subject flat. However, we find no justification to pass any order of compensation because the complaint herself remained silent since after taking possession.

Hence,

                ORDERED

That the CC/260/2020 is allowed exparte .

The O.Ps are directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the flat as per agreement dated 18.7.2006 in favour of the complainant within 3 months from this date.

They are further directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.12000/- to the complainant within the aforesaid period of 3 months.