West Bengal

Rajarhat

RBT/CC/101/2020

Sri Tapan Chandra Das S/o Late Ramesh Chandra Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Ajit Banerjee (Now Deceased) - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Rajesh Biswas

15 Jul 2022

ORDER

Additional Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajarhat (New Town )
Kreta Suraksha Bhavan,Rajarhat(New Town),2nd Floor
Premises No. 38-0775, Plot No. AA-IID-31-3, New Town,P.S.-Eco Park,Kolkata - 700161
 
Complaint Case No. RBT/CC/101/2020
 
1. Sri Tapan Chandra Das S/o Late Ramesh Chandra Das
Residing at 2/3 Bediapara Lane,Post Office-Bediapara,Police Station-Dum Dum,Kolkata-700077,District-North 24 Parganas,West Bengal.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Sri Ajit Banerjee (Now Deceased)
Residing at:24/2/26,Mondal Para Lane,Post Office:-Sinthee,Police Station:-Baranagar,Kolkata-700050,District North 24 Parganas,West Bengal
2. Smt Snigdha Banerjee W/o Sri Ajit Banerjee
Residing at:24/2/26,Mondal Para Lane,Post Office:-Sinthee,Police Station:-Baranagar,Kolkata-700050,District North 24 Parganas,West Bengal
3. Sri Kalipada Dey Talukder(Now Deceased)
Residing at 30/13 Attapara Lane,Post Office-Sinthee,Police Station-Baranagar,Kolkata-700050,District-North 24 Parganas,West Bengal.
4. Sri Ratan Bhattacharya(Landowners)
Residing at:2/3 and 2/4 Bediapara Lane,Post Office-Bediapara,Police Station-Dum Dum,Kolkata-700077,District-North 24 Parganas,West Bengal.
5. Sri Ajoy Bhattacharya
Residing at:2/3 and 2/4 Bediapara Lane,Post Office-Bediapara,Police Station-Dum Dum,Kolkata-700077,District-North 24 Parganas,West Bengal.
6. Ranjan Banerjee(Legal hears)
Residing at:24/2/26,Mondal Para Lane,Post Office:-Sinthee,Police Station:-Baranagar,Kolkata-700050,District North 24 Parganas,West Bengal
7. Chandan Banerjee(Legal heirs)
Residing at:24/2/26,Mondal Para Lane,Post Office:-Sinthee,Police Station:-Baranagar,Kolkata-700050,District North 24 Parganas,West Bengal
8. Swati Mukherjee(Legal heirs)
Residing at:24/2/26,Mondal Para Lane,Post Office:-Sinthee,Police Station:-Baranagar,Kolkata-700050,District North 24 Parganas,West Bengal
9. Prava Rani Dey Talukder(Legal heirs)
Residing at 30/13 Attapara Lane,Post Office-Sinthee,Police Station-Baranagar,Kolkata-700050,District-North 24 Parganas,West Bengal.
10. Smt Kakali Das(Legal heirs)
Residing at 30/13 Attapara Lane,Post Office-Sinthee,Police Station-Baranagar,Kolkata-700050,District-North 24 Parganas,West Bengal.
11. Mitali Majumder(Legal heirs)
Residing at 30/13 Attapara Lane,Post Office-Sinthee,Police Station-Baranagar,Kolkata-700050,District-North 24 Parganas,West Bengal.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Lakshmi Kanta Das PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Partha Kumar Basu MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Sagarika Sarkar MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 15 Jul 2022
Final Order / Judgement
  1. The complainant has filed this case under Section 12 read with Section 13 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the Ops for a direction to all the Ops for execution and registration of sale deed, for payment of compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) and also for handing over the completion certificate in respect to 903 Sq.ft. flat housed in Premises No. 2/3, Bediapara Lane, Dag No. 1/389, 3/389, Kolkata – 700077 mainly on the ground that he has paid a part of the consideration money and ready to pay the balance amount of the flat priced at Rs. 10,34,000/- (Rupees tent lakh thirty four thousand).
  2. OP 1 to 3 were the developers under development agreement dated 15.04.1994 and OP 4 and 5 were the land owners in respect to Premises No. 2/3, Bediapara Lane, Dag No. 1/389, 3/389, Kolkata – 700077. The developers who agreed to construct multi storied building upon the aforesaid premises entered into an agreement that the complainant on 20.11.2010 for the sale of 903 Sq.ft. flat on the 4th Floor of the proposed building at Rs. 10,34,000/- (Rupees tent lakh thirty four thousand). The complainant accordingly paid Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) on 20.11.2010 and a further sum of Rs. 34,000/- on 18.11.2011. On his application the SBI, South City Branch sanctioned a loan of Rs. 9,00,000/- (Rupees nine lakh) only on 10.08.2011. But neither the sanctioned amount was disbursed nor the execution and registration of sale was made – although the complainant continued to be in possession since 2010. This is why the complainant has filed this case on 29.05.2019 for the reliefs as stated above.
  3. All the Ops have contested the case by filing written version and questionnaire. It is stated by the Ops in the written version that that neither the balance amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- nor the interest for delayed payment amounting to Rs. 1,07,000/- (rupees one lakh seven thousand) was paid by the complainant nor the complainant took proper initiative for getting the deed executed and registered upon making payment of the balance amount.
  4. In support of his case the complainant has filed copy of development of agreement, the agreement for sale, reply to the questionnaire, money receipts and evidence in chief. The money receipts and the agreement have not been challenged by the Ops on any ground whatsoever. Therefore, the documents produced by the complainant stay unchallenged.
  5. Only point which needs to be decided in this case is whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for.
  6. It is beyond dispute that after receiving a sum of Rs. 1,34,000/- (Rupees one lakh thirty four thousand) from the complainant under an agreement dated 20.11.2010 the developer parted with the possession of the flat in favour of the complainant and since then the complainant has been in its occupation and the balance amount continued to remain unpaid up till now. It is the case of the complainant that due to the unwillingness or delay on the part of the Ops in the matter of execution and registration of sale deed the bank could not release the balance amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- from the loan account of the complainant. The loan amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- was sanctioned on 01.08.2011 by the SBI against the flat in question. Due to abstention on the part of the bank from releasing the aforesaid amount in the absence of execution and registration of sale deed, the substantial part of the consideration money has since long been remaining unpaid. It would be a futile attempt on our part if we go in for an exercise to discover who was actually at fault, for which the execution and registration of sale deed has not so far been done.
  7. Fact remains that the complainant has been possessing the flat worth. Rs. 10,34,000/- (Rupees tent lakh thirty four thousand) since October, 2010 only by paying a small part of the consideration money i.e. to say Rs. 1,34,000/-. It cannot be opined that the complainant that he has been suffering financial loss due to the sanction of the aforesaid housing loan and it goes without saying that the developer who handed over the flat to the complainant in October, 2010 since been losing interest upon Rs. 9,00,000/-. But we did not find any scope in such a case to pass an order compensating the developer (OPs). The obligation on the part of the Ops related to the execution and registration of sale deed in respect to the flat in question cannot be overlooked. They are obligated to do so after accepting the balance amount from the complainant. The loan of Rs. 9,00,000/- was sanctioned by SBI. It is neither parties’ case that EMI in respect to the said loan is being paid by the complainant since then. But the obligation of the complainant in the matter of making of payment of the balance amount in favour of the Ops cannot be ignored. Therefore, there will be a direction to the complainant for making payment of Rs. 9,00,000/- in respect to the flat he is possessive.
  8. As per affidavit submitted by the Ops on 08.07.2022 the rest Ops will not raise any objection if order directing the complainant to pay the aforesaid amount to Op 4 is issued. Such being the position there will be a direction to the complainant to pay Rs. 9,00,000/- to the OP 4 in cheque. After accepting the aforesaid amount the Ops will also execute and register of sale deed in favour of the complainant.
  9. Since both the parties to this case have contributed either equally or unequally to the delay in effecting the execution and registration of sale deed the complainant would not get anything either on account of compensation or on account of cost.
  10. The case is therefore disposed of on contest with the following direction :-
  1.     The complainant will pay Rs. 9,00,000/- with or without the concurrence of SBI in favour of OP 4 in account payee cheque within 31st July, 2022 and the developers will execute and register sale deed in respect to the Hat on any day between 1st August and 30th April of 2022. There will be no order as to cost.

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

 

Dictated and corrected by

[HON'BLE MR. Lakshmi Kanta Das]
PRESIDENT


 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Lakshmi Kanta Das]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Partha Kumar Basu]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Sagarika Sarkar]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.