Dt. of filing : 11/06/2018
Dt. of Judgement : 15/03/2021
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President
This consumer complaint is filed by the Complainants namely 1) Smt. Sibani Roy, 2) Sri Pritam Roy and 3) Smt. Priya Roy under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties (referred as OPs hereafter) namely 1) Sri Ashim Basu Roy and 2) Sunil Kumar Kundu alleging deficiency in service on their part.
Case of the Complainant in short is that husband of the Complainant No.1 and father of the Complainant No.2 & 3 namely Kanu Roy since deceased was a tenant for a considerable period of time under the Opposite Party No.2. Opposite Party No.2 being the land owner of the property decided to raise a multi storied building and entered into a development agreement with the Opposite Party No.1 and also executed Power of Attorney in his favour. Opposite Party No.1 the developer executed one agreement with the said Kanu Roy predecessor in interest of the Complainants on 21/1/2001to sell a shop room measuring about 115 Sq ft at a consideration of Rs.34,500/- in the proposed building. The said Kanu Roy agreed to purchase the shop room to earn his livelihood by way of self employment. Entire consideration was paid by the said Kanu Roy and the possession of the shop room has already been delivered by the developer. But inspite of repeated request Opposite Parties, failed to execute the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Complainants. After the death of Kanu Roy Complainant became the beneficiary as legal heirs. So the present complaint has been filed by the Complainants praying to direct the Opposite Parties to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in respect of the shop room as per agreement in favour of the Complainants.
Complainant has annexed with the complaint, the agreement for sale and money receipts.
On perusal of the record it appears that inspite of receiving of notice Opposite Party No.1 did not take any step and thus the case proceeded ex-parte against him.
However, Opposite Party No.2 contested the case by filing written version contending inter alia that the Opposite Party No.2 did not have any knowledge whether the said Kanu Roy agreed to purchase the said shop room and the present Complainants are the legal heirs of said Kanu Roy. However, if the Complainants are found bonafide consumers Opposite Party No.2 has no objection to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Complainants. So Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the case.
So the following points require determination:
- Whether there has been deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
Both the points are taken up together for a comprehensive discussion to avoid repetitions.
Complainants have claimed that their predecessor in interest namely Kanu Roy was a tenant under Opposite Party No.2 the land owner. Opposite Party No.2 entered into an agreement with Opposite Party No.1 to raise the construction of the premises after demolishing the old structure. Said Kanu Roy entered into an agreement dated 21/1/2001 to purchase the shop room at a consideration of Rs.34,500/-. To support their claim Complainants have filed the agreement for sale dated 21/1/2001 wherefrom it appears that there is specific recital that the Deed of Conveyance would be executed in favour of the said Kanu Roy after the expiry of the embargo period of 10 years from the date of deed of gift in favour of the owner executed by the Governor of West Bengal on 3/5/1991. It is specifically mentioned that the embargo period will be expired after 3/5/2001. So apparently owner/vendor agreed to execute the Deed of Conveyance in favour of said Kanu Roy predecessor in interest of the Complainants.
It is specific case of the Complainants that the possession of the shop room has already been handed over to said Kanu Roy. But inspite of the repeated request Deed of Conveyance has not been executed. On consideration of the said specific terms and conditions in the agreement entered into between parties, which is duly signed by the owner as well as the promoter/developer, Complainants are entitled to execution of the Deed of Conveyance. Money receipts are also filed showing payment of the consideration price by the said Kanu Roy by way of cheques. Since there is absolutely no contrary material before this Commission that the payment has not been made by the predecessor in interest of the Complainants or any material to counter or rebut the claim of the Complainants, Complainants are entitled to the relief as prayed for.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
CC/343/2018 is allowed on contest against Opposite Party No.2 and ex-parte against Opposite Party No.1.
Opposite Parties are directed to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Complainants in respect of the shop room as per agreement dated 21/1/2001.within 2(Two) months from this date. They are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost to the Complainants within the aforesaid period of 2(Two) months.
