Date of Filing: 22.09.2020

Date of Judgment: 22.8.2022

Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble  President

This complaint is filed by the complainant, Sri Biswa Nath Banik,  under section 35 of the C.P Act, 2019 against the Opposite party namely Sri Santanu Bhaduri (referred to as O.P), alleging deficiency in service on his   part.

The case of the complainant in short is that by an Agreement for Sale dated 30.3.2016 he agreed to purchase a flat as described therein from the O.P at a consideration of Rs. 11 lac , out of which he had already paid a sum of Rs.4 lac before and at the time of execution of the agreement. Subsequently complainant also paid a further sum of Rs. 6,16,000/- . Thus complainant has paid a total sum of Rs. 10,16,000/-. The O.P was liable to complete the flat within 4 months of execution of the agreement and was liable to hand over the possession but the O.P did not complete the construction within the stipulated period as mentioned in the agreement for sale. O.P thereafter left the entire project in incomplete condition due to his financial inability and thus left the flat of the complainant also incomplete, which was subsequently completed by the complainant at his own cost. Complainant thereafter requested the O.P to execute and register the deed of conveyance but he did not pay any heed , on the contrary threatened the complainant . So, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant praying to direct the O.P to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant in respect of the subject flat , to pay monetary compensation due to non-completion of the flat in terms of the Agreement for Sale dated 30.3.2016, to restrain the O.P_ from selling the flat to any third party, to pay interest at the prevailing bank rate for non-compliance of the terms and conditions of the agreement for sale , to pay litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/- and compensation of Rs. 1 lac.

On perusal of the record it appears that inspite of service of notice no step was taken by the O.P. So, the case has been heard exparte.

The only point requires determination is whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant has filed the agreement for sale entered into between the parties, wherefrom it appears that the O.P agreed to sell the flat as described in the schedule to the complainant at a consideration of Rs. 11 lac and as per terms and conditions therein O.P was to complete the flat within 4 months. The complainant has also filed money receipts showing payment of a sum of Rs. 6 ,16,000/-. The Memo of consideration in the agreement reveals that a sum of Rs.4 lac was already paid by the complainant to the O.P before and at the time of execution of the said agreement for sale. So, the document establishes the claim of the complainant that a total sum of Rs. 10,16,000/- has already been paid by the complainant out of the total consideration of Rs. 11 lac. 

            Even though the complainant has claimed that possession of the flat in incomplete condition was handed over to him as the O.P due to his financial inability could not complete the construction and he had to complete the construction at his own cost, but before this Commission there is absolutely no document filed  showing the cost paid  by the complainant for the alleged construction. So, unless the specific evidence is fothcoming before this Commission showing cost borne by the complainant, his prayer for direction upon the O.P to pay the monetary compensation for non-completion of the flat cannot be allowed. However, the amount towards the balance consideration may be adjusted as no contrary material is forthcoming  before this Commission from the side of the O.P.

            So, as apparently the possession has been taken by the complainant but no deed has been executed, the complainant is entitled to a direction upon the O.P to execute and register the deed of conveyance along with litigation cost . It will not be out of place to mention here that as per terms and conditions of the agreement the complainant was to pay the fee and the stamp duty towards the registration of the deed.

Hence,

            ORDERED

That the CC/209/2020  is allowed exparte.

The O.P is directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the flat in favour of the complainant as per agreement dated 30.3.2016 within 2 months from this date.

O.P is further directed to pay litigation cost of Rs. 12000/- to the complainant within the aforesaid period of 2 months.