Shorn of unnecessary details, the case present before the Forum for adjudication may be summarized thus:-                                

                In concise, the case of the Complaint, is that, the Complainant entered into an ‘Agreement for Sale’ on 06.11.2007, with the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 for purchasing a self contained residential flat, specifically described in the ‘Schedule–B’ of the complaint for a total consideration amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- only. The Complainant claimed to have paid a total sum of Rs. 5,65,000/- only to the Opposite Parties, and ready and willing to pay the rest.

                Thereafter the Complainant requested the Opposite Party No. 2 to complete the construction works and to deliver the possession of said flat and the Opposite Parties had verbally delivered the possession of the said flat and the Complainant put a lock on the door of the said flat, but surprisingly on 11.11.2010 the Opposite Parties inserted a further lock on the door of the entrance door on the upper stair and on asking by the Complainant the Opposite Parties assured the Complainant that the same was done for security purpose. After waiting for a long time the Complainant issued a legal notice on 11.10.2012 for possession and on receiving the same the Opposite parties asked for some more time for finishing the construction work and also for execution and registration of the ‘Sale Deed’ and asked to pay some amount which the Complainant had paid.

                 Ultimately the Complainant further sent a legal notice on 19.06.2013 for payment of balance consideration amount of Rs. 1,85,000/- only and also for execution and registration of the ‘Sale Deed’ in respect of the said flat in favour of the Complainant, but the Opposite Parties never intended to receive the balance consideration amount and to deliver the actual vacant possession of the said flat to the Complainant and also never executed and registered the Sale Deed in respect of the said flat in favour of the Complainant, in spite of several requests made by the Complainant what amounts to deficiency and negligent manner of service on the part of the Opposite Parties and by such indifferent attitude of the Opposite Parties caused mental agony and harassment to the Complainant for which he asked for compensation along with redressal as prayed for.                                                                                                          

               Resisting the Complaint, the Opposite Party no. 3 filed Written Version for denying the contentions and all material allegations made by the complainant in the Petition of Complaint and stating inter alia, that the Complainant has no cause of action to file the instant case, and the case is not maintainable.

               The case, as a whole, stated by the Opposite Party No. 2 in gist, is that, the Opposite Party No. 2 had almost admitted the main allegation made by the Complainant and stated that the Opposite Party No. 1 had constructed a multistoried building and the Complainant had booked a flat but never intended to purchase the same. The said flat was ready for years and the Opposite Parties had asked the Complainant for balance payment but of no result.

                The contesting Opposite Party No. 2 had requested the Complainant to take refund of the paid advanced amount and expressed their willingness that the Opposite Parties are ready to refund the paid advanced amount but the Complainant had demanded the extra high which the Opposite Parties could not afford to pay and the Complainant delaying the matter motivatedly to harass the Opposite Parties.  

               Thus, the contested Opposite Party No. 2 had denied any negligence or/and deficiency in rendering service on their part and the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for and prayed for dismissal of this case.

               Despite proper service of the notice to the Opposite Party No. 1, the concern Opposite Party never appeared before the Forum to contest the case nor he had filed any ‘Written Version’ on his behalf or through any Ld. Advocate/Representative. Thus the Opposite Party No. 1 has relinquished his scope to refute the case. So, the instant case has been heard ex-parte against the Opposite Party No. 1.

                                           Points for Determination

                 1.  Is the complaint maintainable under the C. P. Act ?

               2.  Was there any negligence or deficiency in service

                                      on the part of the O.Ps ?

               3.  Is the complainant entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?

                                             Decision with Reasons

               All the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience and brevity.

               The main dispute between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties is that in spite of executing the ‘Agreement for Sale’ whether the Opposite Parties are still liable to execute and register the ‘Sale Deed’ in respect of the said flat in favour of the Complainant.

                We have carefully considered and scrutinized the submission made before us by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant and also critically perused all the material documents on record, as on the date of argument none was present on behalf of the contesting Opposite Party No. 2.

               On overall evaluation of the argument advanced by the Ld. Advocate of the Complainant, and on critical appreciation of the case record, it is clearly evident that an ‘Agreement for Sale’ was executed by and between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties, for purchasing a self contained residential flat, specifically described in the ‘Schedule-B’ of the complaint for a total consideration amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- only, the photocopies of the said ‘Agreement for Sale’ was filed by the Complainant.

                The record reveals that the Complainant claimed to have paid a total sum of Rs. 5,65,000/- only out of the total consideration amount to the Opposite Parties, which was never denied by the contesting Opposite Party by filing his Written Version before the Forum.

                But the fact remains that actually the only contesting Opposite Party No. 2 had explicitly stated that due to non payment of the entire consideration amount the Opposite Parties could/can not able to deliver the said flat in favour of the Complainant. Moreover the contesting Opposite Party No. 2 claimed to ask the Complainant for taking back the refund of the paid advanced amount.                

                On the other hand it is revealed from the record that the Complainant has specifically expressed his readiness and willingness to pay the balance consideration amount towards the Opposite Parties.

                Moreover, the record reveals from the photocopies of the documents filed by the Complainant that the Complainant had sent the legal notice twice towards the Opposite Parties requesting them to receive the rest consideration amount and to do the execution and registration of the Sale Deed in respect of the said flat in favour of the Complainant, but the contesting Opposite Party No. 2 never filed any document or any scrap of paper to revert the same, which proves that the Complainant is still liable to get the said flat on payment of balance consideration amount and the Opposite Parties are still liable to deliver the same.

               So, in view of the above findings manifestly we are of opinion that in the present situation the all the Opposite Parties are obliged to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in respect of the said flat (as stated in the ‘Schedule–B’ in the complaint) in favour of the Complainant and the Complainant is further liable to pay the rest amount of Rs. 1,85,000/- only as balance consideration amount.                                                                                

                Therefore, in light of the above analysis, we are inclined to hold that the Complainant has successfully proved his case and is entitled to get the relief as prayed for and consequently the points for determination are decided in affirmative.

              In short, the Complainant deserves success.

              In the result, we proceed to pass

                                             O R D E R

                That the case be and the same is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party No. 2 and also allowed ex-parte against the Opposite Party No. 1 with cost of Rs. 3,000/- only payable by both Opposite Parties within one month from the date of this ‘Order’.

              That both the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to hand over the actual vacant possession of the said flat (as stated in the ‘Schedule–B’ in the complaint)to the Complainant within one month from the date of this ‘Order’.

              That the Complainant is directed to deposit the balance consideration amount of Rs. 1,85,000/- only to the head of the ‘President’ DCDRF, Dist. Hoogly and the same shall be disbursed to the Opposite Parties after ‘Sale Deed’ has been duly executed and registered.

              That both the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally be directed to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in respect of the said flat (as stated in the ‘Schedule–B’ in the complaint) in favour of the Complainant within one month from the date of this ‘Order’. In default, the Complainant has liberty to execute and register the same through the Consumer Forum.

                That all the Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2 jointly and severally are further be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- only, to the Complainant, as compensation for harassment and mental agony within one month from the date of this ‘Order’.

                 In the event of non compliance of any portion of the order by the O.Ps within a period of one month from the date of this order, both the O.Ps shall have to pay a sum of Rs. 200/- per day, from the date of this order till full satisfaction of the decree, and such amount shall be paid and shall be deposited by both the O.Ps to the State Consumer Welfare Fund.

                 Let copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied for.